Here's a "big picture" point that I think we should consider before we
drill down into specific issues and proposals about the core.
I think (with no data to support it) that virtually all liberal-arts
colleges and universities have "general education" requirements (what
Fiona called "distribution requirements"). Only a small number (how
many? who?), including Caltech, require all students to take a set of
specific courses. I guess this is the essence of "The Core" at
Caltech.
Of course, liberal-arts colleges are not focused on training the
world's best scientists and engineers, as we at Caltech are.
The canonical "pro" argument: "The Core (is one of the things that)
makes Caltech special!"
The canonical "con" argument: "The Core (is one of the things that)
makes Caltech suck!"
Of course, only some people will voice either argument, but many will
voice both! Do we really want to be special in that way?
So, before we drill down into what we want the core to be, we must
first consider whether we really want to continue with the core.
There is something to be said for "general education" requirements,
which can run the gamut from a broad range of easy courses to a narrow
range of deep and challenging courses.
But surely, all Caltech students should know lots of math, and lots of
physics, and lots of HSS, and lots of ... well, everything else. The
question is, does the one-size-all nature of the core serve this?
The core isn't just specific courses. Student choose from a (limited)
menu of HSS courses and science menu courses. One of the biggest
complaints I get from students is that the list is so limited. For
example, we currently offer 6 menu courses (Ay 1, Ch/APh 2, ESE 1, Ge
1, IST 1, or IST 4). Personally, I think 15 or 20 would be more
appropriate. The HSS selection is broader.
As a physicist, surely I believe that all Caltech students should take
two years of physics, right? Well, it pains me to talk to Caltech
undergrads who learned to hate my beloved subject by being forced to
take our core offerings. I can easily imagine a range of optional
physics courses, designed for the non-physicist, that could be much
more interesting and fun.
But who would teach all these Gen Ed courses? Caltech profs often
don't even want to teach in-depth courses in their field. Well, as I
mentioned in our meeting today, when I was an undergrad in the
mid-70's, Harvard big-shot professors were forced to teach gen-ed
courses. Many failed miserably. Some rose to the challenge and did
brilliantly (maybe after an iteration or two). Personally, I think
Caltech profs can also rise to the challenge, brilliantly.
Well, I don't want to be the advocate for replacing the glorious
Caltech Core with garden-variety Gen-Ed. But I do think our committee
should consider this big-picture choice, early on in our
deliberations. I'm tired of hearing "Core sucks!" and wondering what
it would take to turn that around.
On another topic: it goes without saying that the 4-page description
of the core in the Caltech Catalog, pp.176-179 (
http://pr.caltech.edu/catalog/pdf/catalog_08_09.pdf ) is required
reading for all us committee members. All Caltech undergrads, and most
Caltech faculty advisors, know these pages well.
- Alan W
