IN THE last few years, the University community has discussed at length plans to "internationalize" the curriculum to better prepare students to compete in a world that seems to be rapidly shrinking. The logic behind this is that students will be better prepared to interact with a global community if they have been exposed to it in college. Though this argument makes sense, it seems to me to be slightly misguided, as most students after leaving school will continue to work and live within the United States and will interact primarily with Americans. Before changing the focus of the curriculum to emphasize international trends and cultures, we ought to examine how well we have taught our own.
The answer is not as promising as you might think. According to a study by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute's Civic Learning Board, students at the University have shown a negative learning trend in recent years in American Studies. Simply put, in areas pertaining to American history, economics and politics, students at our University have forgotten more than they have learned in their four years here. The University is not alone in this intellectual shortcoming; other schools with negative learning trends include MIT, Georgetown, Yale, Brown and Cornell. Nationwide, the average senior achieved results just 1.5 percent better than those of freshmen on the questions asked in the study, a troubling find.
This study indicates that University students generally fail to learn the history, politics and economics of the nation they inhabit. Students frequently avoid the classes that would facilitate such learning. The University chooses to allow such behavior to continue. For example, to graduate with a degree from the College, one need only complete six credits in the humanities, six credits in the social sciences, and three historical studies requirements. There are no mandatory classes. Theoretically, one could escape the University without ever taking an economics class, a politics class or a true American history class. Given the lack of emphasis placed on the study of our own country, it is no wonder that many graduate from the University with less knowledge of our American culture and government than they entered with.
These statistics and facts should be troubling to the reader. To participate in our own economy and political system, we ought to be well-versed in the principles that allow it to function. By no means do I mean to suggest every student ought to major in American history, politics or economics; every student has different gifts, and every subject area provides a wider view of some aspect of the world around us. I would suggest, however, that before placing any new emphasis on the wider world, we ought to examine how well (or poorly) we are teaching students to interact with that in which we live on a day-to-day basis.
How can we solve this? First, we can place a greater emphasis on the importance ofunderstanding American culture. Doesn't it make sense, for example, that a biology major understand how laws governing stem cell research are passed? Secondly, we can narrow down what qualifies to fulfill the area requirements. We don't need more restrictions on the freedom of students, but perhaps one of the required social sciences credits should be a politics class or an economics class. And the historical studies requirement should be filled by a true history class.
I would further argue that in no way would this diminish an international education. Skills learned in tackling an economics course, for instance, apply the world over. The same can be said for the analytical skills required for a history course; the ability to take a set of facts and analyze it effectively is the same whether the data one examines is from America, China or South America. If we are teaching our own history, politics, economics and culture effectively, we also are cultivating skills that translate across cultures.
According to a report by the Committee on Curriculum Internationalization, 80 percent of students feel that the University is making at least some effort to prepare them for life in an international community.. Further, 57.5 percent admit they do not maximize the opportunities already offered by the University. The chairman of this committee, Ryan McElveen, claims that about 20 percent of the student body is extremely frustrated, but again, 80 percent do not feel the same frustration. The impetus to prepare for an international environment ought to be on the individual student, not via a forced process instigated by the University. Until more students call for change, and until opportunities are maximized, there is no need to force internationalization; rather we ought to make sure we are not neglecting our own culture and heritage.
Robby Colby's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at rcolby@cavalierdaily.com.
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/report/old/2006/major_findings-2.html
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/report/old/2006/summary.html
http://artsandsciences.virginia.edu/college/requirements/area.html
http://www.web.virginia.edu/iaas/surveys/past/2006-07/under07curriculum.htm
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 16 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
