A Core Curriculum is a Dictatorship

Technically a core curriculum isn’t the same thing as a form of absolute rule, but there are similarities. A university has the ultimate power dynamic for students. Students pay tuition and are told what to do. A university has all the power to enforce rules onto students without little or no return feedback. If a university suddenly decides to make it a requirement to memorize every country on the planet students would be forced to comply. Although, there is a president at every university, but do the students vote for the president? This makes it very important to look at the efficacies that universities enforce on students. Specifically, the requirements universities apply to curriculums for students.

It's quite common for universities to require a set of courses to graduate. Often this core curriculum is filled with courses completely irrelevant to many degrees. Courses like a science, foreign language, composition, and oral are commonly found to be required classes at many universities. The common defense for the existence of core curriculums is the “well-roundedness” that it brings. It also supposedly teaches essential skills for all students to thrive in the world. It serves to build a foundation where students can either build or use it for their education. It has a legitimate purpose, but, in my opinion, a core curriculum greatly limits a student’s progress in their education.

In my philosophy of education, I believe that education is only relevant to what interests a student, with a major being a greater broader interest. Classes that are of no interest shouldn’t be required for students because the benefits it supposedly creates are rarely achieved because of the students' motivation put forth into the class. A histroy class can add so much depth in perspective and a understanding of one's own identity, but if a student simply learns the bare minimum to just pass the class these benefits will never be used. The class then exists as busy work that doesn't bring any value. It will only inhibit a student’s studies toward his or her actual interests.

Of course, the types of courses usually in a core curriculum have theoretical high-yield value for a student. Writing, science, and art classes help a student’s education and brings in diverse views that’ll bring prosperous benefits for the rest of their life. Except these benefits are assuming that a student is already lacking in these subject areas. A first-year composition class is useless for a student who spent years writing for their school newspaper all 4 years of high school. A oral speech requirement is useless to the student that won state high school debate. Sure there are ways to test out of core curriculums courses, but often students have already reaped the benefits that these courses are supposed to bestow.

Education is built on the backbone of relevancy. A student that has no interest in history can’t reap benefits from a history class. It's simply a waste of time. Then why do trivial classes exist? These inhibitors make education more sluggish and slow, preventing the actual education from prospering. Giving students more freedom with their education will be a return on investment in a deeper and more diverse degree.