In my four years as an undergraduate at the University of Minnesota, I spent significant time and effort seeking opportunities outside my discipline of study, and have found the most valuable experiences at the intersection of disciplines. This is the intention behind the Liberal Education curriculum, and it is one that I believe should adapt and change as our world changes.
The mission of our University’s current liberal education is “to investigate the world from new perspectives, learn new ways of thinking that will be useful in many areas of life and grow as an active citizen and lifelong learner.” As I come to the end of my time at this institution, I reflect on this mission.
The importance of the ability to consider various perspectives and integrate them is becoming increasingly evident in the world we live in. As graduates, we want to be able to enter the world feeling confident in our preparation. Is the Liberal Education curriculum that was put in place in the ‘90s and only minimally revised in 2010 preparing us for the world as it stands now, over 25 years later?
The Core Curriculum proposal stands on the idea that multidisciplinarity does not have to be a handful of separate experiences that we expect students to synthesize on their own, without any guidance. I took a history class, a math class and every other requirement in the current Liberal Education curriculum, but I had to synthesize their perspectives on my own. Sure, I can solve a calculus problem by hand, but how does that relate to my education as a future therapist? I may have mastered “Mathematical Thinking” as it stands for my Lib Ed transcript, but how do I apply that as useful preparation for my future career?
The intentionality of the Core Curriculum proposal is what stands out to me as distinct from the current Lib Ed model. This is most evident in the creation of the Multidisciplinary Synthesis course. This is a three-credit course meant to be taken at the end of the Core Curriculum track. But don’t worry! Both curriculums have the same amount of credits and the ability to transfer credits.
This project-based course would allow students to devote time and effort to synthesizing the various disciplines and ways of thinking they have explored throughout the years. Sure, students can spend time on their own to do that, but we want our curriculum to work for our students as it stands, and not with the expectation of a spontaneous lightbulb moment for more than 39,000 individual people. Students pay an inordinate amount of money and time for the credits they take to graduate, and I believe those credits should do everything they can to work for the student taking them.
Some faculty have expressed concerns about who will teach the synthesis courses, but my concern as a student is that this necessary change to a 25-year-old curriculum is getting overlooked for concern about details that can be fleshed out as soon as this change is implemented.
The world cannot wait for a new generation of leaders to emerge, so we cannot spend years deliberating over insignificant details that are solvable. I know plenty of soon-to-be-graduates looking for jobs who would be willing to facilitate a synthesis course or two. (I’m partly joking, but perhaps it’s worth considering.)
I ask that the Faculty Senate reconsider the proposed Core Curriculum.
Students are excited about this proposal, and I believe that we should be involved in this conversation. If you have concerns about the details of implementation, do not let that overshadow the incredible role this proposal, ideologically, could play in the lives of the students who pass through our University.
If you, as the Faculty Senate, want to truly value the student experience, ask for our views. Ask us about our experience in these courses. I think you’ll find that most students want to extract meaning from our education, and we want our University to support us in doing so.
Kelsey is graduating this May from the College of Liberal Arts and is the current College of Liberal Arts Student Board President.