College Curriculum - Assignment Example

College Curriculum A college curriculum is intended and designed to provide an academic framework through which students work towards becoming educated, focused and successful citizens. Essentially, the curriculum entails complex thought patterns that develop into a major, which is the students’ field of specialization and, typically, up to one third or half of the college course makes up or is related to the major (Guthrie 23). However, while aiming to diversify and incorporate a scope of skill sets, it is also designed such that students are required to engage in other sectors of knowledge that are not concerned with their majors. For example, in the US and Canada, the major which a student is required to formally commit to in order to qualify for an undergraduate degree is typically wide, which tends to be strenuous and time consuming. “It required students to complete courses not only in a specialized discipline, but also in other subjects” (McGrath 62). This paper will argue in support of college students not taking the courses or knowledge sectors that have nothing to do with their majors. An academic major is evidently the undergraduate degree’s dominant and defining characteristic (USDHE 119). It follows, therefore, that the primary perception of college by most students is one that offers the liberty to make choices rather than one that involves strenuous hours of irrelevant classes. Agreeably, that is the frustrating and necessary path students need to take towards success, but they should be accorded the freedom to choose. Critics argue against the freedom to choose whether to take the irrelevant classes or not, saying it is merely driven by the urge to get through college as fast as possible, get into careers and start making money. However, looking at it from another perspective, it can be acknowledged that most students will naturally perform much better in certain academic areas while they are poor in others (Guthrie 21). Further, and equally important, is the fact that the subjects not related to a student’s major may also be outside their scope of interest, which justifies why the process of completing their major should be speeded up. In this sense, critics must understand that choosing a major is different from choosing a job. Academic majors come into being as “alternative components of the undergraduate degree” (Guthrie 26). The positive aspect of designing curriculums to suggest or encourage some level of risk taking in the form of including classes not directly related to a student’s major cannot entirely be disputed (Kelly 46). However, the key concepts of how and when a major is chosen would override the need to take such risks. In most four-year courses, students do not have to select their majors before their sophomore year, which allows them time to develop interest in certain subjects they are confident in. However, some majors such as engineering, nursing or accounting and all two-year degree courses pose obvious exceptions and students are required to commit themselves to their respective fields earlier on in the course (Goldin & Katz 211). Taking courses in fields that appeal to them is a key criteria students use to choose their majors, and such majors are the strongest and most apparent links to the gains the students wish to achieve. After undergoing general education for not less than 18 years, fresh high school graduates must be encouraged in their endevour to start assuming some degree of control of their future (Bilbao 83). Basically though implicitly, this translates into being allowed to select specific class schedules in college alongside their choice of class rather than a two-year continuation of general education. This is not to dispute the significance of students taking up various subjects which, after all, only serve to diversify their common knowledge. Rather, it brings out more meaning when viewed from the perspective that diversifying simply is not applicable to some critical majors such as, for example, once again, engineering. Curriculum planners and instructors are aware that not all students will perform exceptionally well in all subjects and insisting on the diversification fronted by general education will only reinforce and highlight their weaknesses in some subjects. Therefore, it must be understood that the lack of choice, which only forces the repetition of what was taught in high school, is not only frustrating but even the required classes also present challenges to students. Interest levels drop considerably which impact negatively on grades (VandenBos 69). In this aspect, motivation is the overlooked factor because if students do not show interest in certain classes, the determination to complete them slackens off as well. On the other hand, if students are afforded the choice to pick and control their class format, there will be no apparent excuses as to not succeed. On its own, this aspect shows why only necessary and relevant classes should be focused on in the course of a student’s major. Agreeably, mistakes are bound to be made when students are granted such exclusive choices, but they should also be recognized as part and parcel of the learning process. Further, not imposing a strict set of classes is the essence of maturity and adulthood. As earlier stated, most students perceive college life as one that offers them liberty and look forward to it as a platform of making personal choices. However, they would be frustrated to find out that they will still be subjected to being told what they must do. In the US, that has been cited as one of the reasons some drop out of college (Forest & Kinser 189). As opined by critics, instruction is necessary, but it must also be noted that guidance should not overrule or come at the expense of being able to choose only what is necessary in the pursuit of careers. The aspect of strain needs to be minimized if not eliminated so that students can give full attention and concentration on courses that they enrolled for in the first place (Spellings 33). An excellent biology student might not be as good at history and related subjects. Again, this is not to say that history is of no use and needs to be discarded. It simply implies that such students should be given space to decide whether to take history classes or not, which are, after all, not core aspects of his major. Requiring students to go through such classes that are not mandatory to their units does not motivate them, and without motivation, even the core courses will not be pursued with the needed effort. “Overall it is important for someone to have the freedom to choose whatever they like in order to pursue their career” (USDHE 114) When sets of classes are imposed upon students, compounded by the challenge to complete them with high grades, it works against its intended objective most of the times (Goldin & Katz 204). Instead, students should be encouraged to pursue and complete their majors within reasonable time, workload and their own efforts. In accordance with one of its objectives, the college curriculum is meant to give students a guideline to an academic framework that will facilitate their learning towards being educated and eventually becoming successful citizens. On the other hand, imposing classes on them is likely to have counter effects. Therefore, it is imperative for instructors and academicians to not only insist on administering majors through select faculties in academic departments (Kelly 58). Rather, they should offer flexibility in which students can design their own majors, albeit subject to approval by the faculty, in interdisciplinary majors. Proponents of general education, those who support the argument that students should be required to take classes outside of their majors, often base their ideas on competition. They opine that all students in college start at the same level and it is their determination to succeed that will drive them towards their goal. However, it needs to be noted that success as a goal in education is basically a representation of an individual’s personal best (Goldin & Katz 214). Each individual, students being no exception, perceives the notion of best differently and, more importantly, how it is achieved. Scientists and pedagogical specialists agree that individuals have different learning capabilities, more so retaining what they learn. This concept still points back to the interests of a student and his capacity to learn and retain material from certain subjects. Supported by the very reason of choosing a major, therefore, students should not be required to take courses that add no critical value to their majors. General knowledge cannot be disputed because, after all, it will definitely be advantageous in terms of employability but, on the other hand, the gap created by the shortage of specialists in certain fields cannot also be overlooked (Kolby 324). Once again, this emphasizes on the need of flexibility where students can design their own courses with faculty approval. The need to concentrate on core classes and get through with the academic process has to be distinguished with the urge to get out of college and get a job. Given the opportunity to choose, most college-going age students are mature enough to make informed decisions, and the faculty is always available to offer guidance. Further, allowing students to concentrate only on the majors they chose strongly supports the aspect of self-improvement while at the same time allows them to grow their character (Kolby 601). Critics often assume that when focus is placed on the necessity of self-improvement, one aspect of the individual is inherently wrong. On the contrary, when students are only required to take courses related to their majors, it also helps them build and improve on their characters. Students inherently have both strengths and weaknesses, and each of them should be addressed in order get the best of them in their courses. When focus is placed on a student’s strong points, which in this case is the major they chose, it is synonymous to building on their character and ability. On the other hand, when focus is placed on their weaknesses, which are agreeably not flaws but simply negative traits, there is always the risk of emphasizing them rather than transforming them into positivity (McGhee 94). In conclusion, it is true that most higher education institutions require students to take courses outside of their majors and for valid reasons too. However, there is also reason enough to eliminate this aspect from the institutions. This paper has shown that some courses are too wide and the need for extra classes that cover courses outside a student’s major is often more strenuous than productive. A student’s academic major of choice, based on how they performed in high school, defines their characteristics and abilities. However, some courses will require them to enroll for classes that they are evidently weak in yet they are also under pressure to complete their courses within specified time periods. This paper does not dispute the significance of general knowledge, but also strongly supports the need of more specialty-type curricula. Diversification is a necessary factor in the labor market, but its cost in terms of strain and time spent in college should also be considered. Further, “the level of interest dramatically goes down and therefore grades might not be as high as if classes were to be picked by the student” (USDHE 111). Finally, when students are allowed to design their own majors, they not only build on their best academically, but also character, leading to self-improvement. Works Cited Bilbao, Purita. Curriculum Development. Quezon City: Lorimar, 2008. Print. Forest ,James and Kinser, Kevin. Higher Education in the United States: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2006. Print. Goldin, C., and Katz, L. The Race between Education and Technology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008. Print. Guthrie, James. Encyclopedia of Education: Academic Major. New York: Macmillan, 2006. Print. Kelly, A. The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. New Jersey: Prentice, 2009. Print. Kolby, J. GMAT Prep Course. California: Nova, 2004. Print. McGhee, Micki. Self-Help Inc.: Makeover Culture in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print. McGrath, Charles. “What Every Student Should Know.” New York Times 8 Jan. 2006. Print. Spellings, Margaret. A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of US Higher Education. Washington: USDHE, 2006. Print. VandenBos, Gary. APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington: American Psychological Association, 2007. Print. United States Department of Higher Education (USDHE). Commission Reports: A National Dialogue: The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Washington. Washington: Author, 2006. Print. Read More