Based on the decision of Trinity College administrators to review the ill-defined Quantitative Studies requirements, you might make the inference that our T-Reqs are cavity-free save for a few incisors.
You’d be wrong: They’re practically in need of dentures. Though they are well-intentioned and generally emphasize appropriate academic goals, the Trinity College academic requirements almost systematically lack specificity and focus. This in many cases renders them toothless, to the point where they may need a comprehensive review.
In fairness, the matter is significantly more complex than it seems. The question of what students should study is a loaded one. It is laden with value-judgments regarding our goals as an institution, what kinds of students and members of society we wish to create and what the purpose and end of education should be. These are all moral questions, and given that there are so many of them, it would be unreasonable to expect a clean consensus among the faculty and administrators who deliberate over them. That we have T-Reqs at all is a bit of a feat.
Still, T-Reqs as they currently exist seldom ensure that students get a rigorous and meaningful exposure to the multiple academic disciplines in a way that contributes to their intellectual maturation as well-rounded college graduates.
One problem is that some coding designations—such as the Civilizations, Cross Cultural Inquiry and even Arts, Literature and Performance goals—are handed out like candy. This, of course, dilutes the effectiveness of those requirements. Meanwhile, as others have noted, there seems to be no consistent principle behind how other codings, most notably the QS, are distributed. Yet more students complain of the difficulty in satisfying some requirements, such as that for Ethical Inquiry.
This last gripe gives me cause for optimism. Perhaps I am too idealistic, but I consider wholly appropriate, if not outright necessary, for the University to be selective in its issuance of the field and method of inquiry codings. These specifications, in a very basic way, are the metric by which the University helps define what makes a Duke grad. I, for one, believe the University has the right to maintain some kind of defined vision for what that should be.
The problems however, do not occur solely on administrators’ end. In a Jan. 28 Chronicle article, “Admins look to revamp QS code in curriculum,” Ingeborg Walther, associate dean of Trinity College and director of the Office of Curriculum and Course Development, was spot on in her diagnosis of the situation.
“Many students see the curriculum as more of a system of hoops to jump through rather than a systematic development of skills and abilities they will need for their future,” she said. Indeed, completion of T-Reqs is often treated as an unpleasant chore.
Still, though with a few exceptions, students cannot be expected to fully appreciate the breadth and purpose of these requirements. That is why they are students. Part of the goal of the requirements, indeed, is that they might come to do so.
Incentives can be changed to encourage students to be bolder in their academic experimentation and immersion into unfamiliar disciplines. For example, the new pass/fail policy is a step in the right direction. Future reforms, such as one which might allow students to take T-Reqs pass/fail, though likely controversial, could potentially incentivize students to take more rigorous courses to fill science and humanities requirements without the fear of taking a hit to their GPA.
To this, many will respond that such a pass/fail option could lead students to further shirk the purpose of T-Reqs. Perhaps they are correct. But the University is fully within its authority to be ambitious and experiment as it reconsiders the QS designation and hopefully other ones as well.
Some students who have been able to fill requirements with the easiest coursework may at first recoil at the prospect of increased structure in the curriculum. I say, let them. Expecting students to know how to make the most of their education from the time they arrive on campus is like asking someone to draw their own map to an unknown destination.
Of course, the choice is not a simple one between freedom and structure—it is much more of a delicate balancing act. But a case can be made that freedom in curricular choice thrives most when it is subordinated within a clear and intelligibly structured set of requirements.
So, to the Trinity College administrators: Be bold in your goals for defining the QS Area of Knowledge. Even if students resent them now, we will thank you for them later. After all, T-Reqs without teeth might as well be extinct.
Vikram Srinivasan 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.