FINALLY, Student Council is discussing "globalizing" the academic curriculum. This long overdue discussion is, however, only a small part of the bigger picture. While the addition of new languages, more race-related courses and a Queer Studies program would be beneficial to our current academic program, they would hardly guarantee that University students graduate with a broader perspective.
First of all, while a major constitutes only 30 or so credits of a student's education, it strongly shapes one's perspective and approach. For example, an economics major is likely to analyze and critique a Washington Post article with an economics paradigm. She will probably, after reading accounts of a revolution, begin to ask economic questions: What was the income gap? Was an economic boom followed by a dip in the economy? In contrast, a political science major asks different questions: Were the political institutions unstable? Was there an irreconcilable clash among the elites? Next time you get in a debate with a friend, take note of the paradigm she uses when approaching a problem and how that correlates with her major. With some exceptions, this general rule of "approach by major" stands firm among University students.
The problem we face is very simple: Having only one strong paradigm to approach problems is wholly inadequate. Contrary to traditional academics, the truth is that single-paradigm approaches are (or at least should be) the dinosaurs of academia. Rather than a single-track course of study, a major in "politics" should have requirements in economics, sociology or anthropology. The University could provide a number of requirements to achieve this goal. For example, they could require either two minors or 36 or so credits drawn from at most three departments as a supplement to any major or other similar requirements.
Several objections could be raised to such standards. First, one could say that the proposed standards violate our commitment to self-governance. But this would be an uninformed, ad-hoc response. The Commerce School (second in the nation) has a strongly-structured curriculum, as do the Architecture and Engineering Schools. While these schools are more specified, their students are no different than College students when it comes to self-governance. The self-governance argument simply does not stand.
Second, one might argue that students already get a liberal arts education in the 90 credits they take outside of their major. Given the basic requirements and students' preferences for classes within their majors, the value of this argument is diminished. Furthermore, if it is true that students are already being taught many different paradigms, then the proposals should cause no problems: Carry on with business as usual. That such suggestions do provoke reaction is indicative of students' adhesion to their chosen majors.
Third, some -- but hopefully not many -- would complain that this would make their curriculum more difficult. For a University that can be unchallenging at times for undergraduates, such a challenge should be welcome, not avoided. That college would become less convenient is no reason to limit our educations.
Finally, one could say that those looking for an interdisciplinary education can major in Political and Social Thought or any other of the various interdisciplinary majors. However, this does not address the concern that all University students should graduate with a multitude of perspectives. Nor does it address the students who are excluded from such majors because of their competitive, hyper-selective entry process.
The second limitation inherent in Student Council's efforts is somewhat related: Just because more courses are offered doesn't mean that students will take them. In other words "globalizing" a curriculum doesn't mean that students will receive a "globalized" education, particularly those students who are most likely to avoid classes on race or queer relations. The aforementioned solution addresses this problem. Along with a globalized curriculum, the University should globalize its requirements. The fact that only one "non-Western" class is required is ridiculous, not to mention the slightly offensive category of "non-Western," which implies that everything but the West can be clumped into one group. The requirement should be expanded: one course in Latin America, one in African studies, one in the Middle-East and one in East Asia. This would guarantee that the University does not graduate students completely ignorant of a more and more interdependent world.
Student Council is right to pursue globalization; their motivation, transparency and continued dialogue should serve as a guideline for other University institutions that falter in their communication with the student body (Honor, for example). However, we should be careful to limit our goals to simply enlarging the course offerings directory. Rather, we should enlarge the COD, more strongly encourage a liberal arts education and make rigorous what is admittedly an overwhelmingly easy liberal arts curriculum.
Sina Kian's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at skian@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
