Graphic by Madelon Podell

Us Colgate University students have likely all complained about the Liberal Arts Core Curriculum at some point or another. The three Core components — a Core Conversations, Core Science and Core Communities class — can be nuisances while we meticulously plan our course load each semester. For STEM majors, taking a Core Science can feel redundant when they’re already required to take methods classes along with introductory science courses (which are sometimes even harder than the higher-level ones). 

Being able to think in different ways — indicative of cognitive flexibility — has been found to correlate with higher levels of openness, especially in regard to ideology. So, if I seem so fond of the Core and what it aims to do, then what exactly is the problem with Colgate’s Core? My issue with Colgate’s Core Curriculum does not stem from the content of the classes we take or the reasons we take these classes. What I take issue with is the fact that course restrictions turn these fascinating, unique classes into boxes we need to check. 

I trust that Colgate’s administration is trying to do what’s best for us. As a political science major, my Core Science was one of my only opportunities to thoroughly learn about methodology and how to conduct an experiment — something that is necessary for the field of political science but not required for the political science degree here. It’s also important for STEM students to have a change of pace in taking Conversations or a Core Communities. The humanities aren’t necessarily easier than STEM; they require a different approach and way of thinking. 

As annoying as it can be to have to fill requirements, I don’t think we should remove the Core Curriculum. In fact, it is often the people most resistant to taking courses outside of their field of interest who need it the most. It’s even more annoying to see a fascinating class like “Dangerous Earth: Science of Geologic Disasters” and not be able to attempt to register for it because you’ve already taken your Core Science. 

Of course, I do understand why restrictions exist. These classes are required to graduate, and it would be unfair for juniors and seniors (and those who filled their Core requirements early) to fill up classes that they don’t “need” for graduation. Especially with first-year students registering for classes last, it would be impractical to take away restrictions. Instead, I propose that Core classes that are not filled should open up to all students after registration.

I can already see the administration’s argument: we want our seniors taking higher-level classes; they need to think at a higher level! To this, I say, it is better to be able to think diversely than it is to think at “higher” levels (which is inherently subjective, especially since not all 300-400 level classes are created equal.) Further, most students wouldn’t sacrifice their degree to take every Core offered, meaning that students would likely prioritize finishing their major (thus taking higher-level classes) before branching out and exploring more of what the Core has to offer. 

I also think expanding opportunities to take Core classes would allow students to keep exploring different fields. It is naïve to think that, by our first or second years, we students have decided exactly what we want to do after college. The Core classes offer distinctly specific introductions to topics that could fuel our passions. For example, a political science major who finds an interest in political theory and the origins of government might benefit from taking CORE S130, The Social Life: The Paradox of Cooperative Behavior, where you explore why animals are often compelled to live in cooperative societies. 

A well-rounded, multidisciplinary approach is essential for success in today’s complex world, and Colgate’s Core Curriculum offers that to first-years and sophomores. Including upperclassmen in the lifelong learning process that is embedded in the CORE would benefit Colgate, the students and the future of leadership.