The single most important reason that I came to Duke was to be able to study both mathematics and literature. In most of the world, I wouldn't be allowed to.
In my (French) high school, I was forced to make a choice between studying math and science or literature. Sophie's choice, indeed.
This experience taught me to value the freedom liberal arts students take for granted, and I resolved to take full advantage of it as soon as possible.
I hated the French educational system for imposing a course of study upon me. Nevertheless, I couldn't help but notice some of the benefits of an integrated curriculum.
For example, as a senior, in math, I studied the exponential function. Later, in physics class, we used it to study radioactive decay, which we then used in geology to date movements of tectonic plates.
Duke has recognized the benefits of such integration in the study of specific themes, and has created an opportunity for students to enjoy them through the creation of Focus programs, a rather less coercive alternative to a fixed curriculum.
Nevertheless, Duke is firmly in the camp of the liberal arts, and it grounds itself in the belief that students should be the architects of their own education.
Most liberal arts institutions, including Duke, recognize that there are some things every student "should" know, however. Some respond to this by instituting a core curriculum for freshmen or a variation on this.
However, one part of the legacy of poststructuralism is the distrust of canons of all sorts. In order to dodge this particular theoretical bullet, then, many liberal arts colleges chose an alternative. At Duke, we call it Curriculum 2000.
It's no coincidence that Curriculum 2000's designers originally summarized it as ticking off boxes in a matrix. The current hodge-podge lacks the benefit of an integrated curriculum, which might draw links between the different disciplines; and it lacks the courage of an imposed curriculum, which might be held accountable for the subjects it assigns.
My two best papers reflect my embrace of a broad course of study: the one is about the structure of Baudelaire's "Flowers of Evil," the other about the structure of rational points on elliptic curves. I've also had the opportunity to do other things, like participating in the Humanitarian Challenges Focus and learning to mangle Chinese.
And yet every time course selection rolls around, I rage at the fact that the only Civilizations seminar with both Writing and Science, Technology and Society codes conflicts with my last opportunity to learn about topology. I almost forget that I was interested in Anthropology of Numbers even before I realized that it was the Holy Grail of T-Reqs.
The system is broken. Some departments and professors seek course codes for courses that plainly should not receive them. Some departments create absurdly easy courses in order to help students get around the system. Still others fail to apply for codes their courses should obviously receive.
Partially because of this, Curriculum 2000 is often reduced to nothing more than an annoying formality and a pointless distraction from the business of learning.
I knew that I would learn more if I took a real class to fulfill my Natural Science requirement. However, another part of me realized that, if I took a course where "the single main factor for grading is attendance," I would have more time to get on with my education. It's hard to feel guilty: if the department's director of undergraduate studies thinks that this is sufficient to be half of my mandatory scientific education, who am I to disagree?
I personally would rather bin the entire system, and let any student with a major and a sufficient GPA graduate. However, if we are to salvage Curriculum 2000, Duke needs to do better at deciding which courses receive codes to satisfy graduation requirements.
Course syllabi should be audited to ensure that no course codes are improperly assigned. Students must be allowed a mechanism to protest courses that do not carry the course codes that they should (for example, if a "lecture" is in fact a seminar).
Most importantly, Duke needs to crack down on classes that allow lazy, or otherwise disinclined, students to get easy 'A's and course codes.
If graduation requirements are to be meaningful, satisfying them can't be a box-ticking exercise. If we are going to require students to collect course codes, we should require them to actually engage with the material those course codes are supposed to embody. Instituting "requirements" that can be easily circumvented is begging any student who disagrees with a requirement to circumvent it.
A liberal arts education should be about confronting new ideas and new ways of thinking, not learning to navigate loopholes.
That's what law school is for.
David Rademeyer is a Trinity senior. His column runs every other Thursday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.