As my first year at Boston College comes to an end, I’ve had the opportunity to get acquainted with some of the hallmarks of the BC experience. Between my major’s introductory courses, I managed to weave in almost all of the core requirements I needed to fulfill. While searching through philosophy, theology, and arts courses, I felt lost trying to choose which classes would best suit me and mostly opted for the ideal time rather than the course description or even the professor.
Yet in doing so, I realized the alarming inconsistency between courses with the same course code, same description, and sometimes even the same exact time of day and week. Whether it is a varying amount of reading for a theology core (often differing by tens of pages each week) or the amount of time dedicated to genuine discussion in class (I have barely spoken in either semester of my philosophy courses), these inconsistencies greatly impact the experience in the classroom and what students take away into the rest of their education.
Aside from the general annoyance this variability causes, it leaves students unenthusiastic about the core requirements. As a STEM major, I was actually looking forward to the core. After all, isn’t it a selling point of the Boston College experience—cura personalis? I wanted the opportunity to engage with different texts, think critically about topics I’d likely never encounter again during my four years, and spend my freshman and sophomore years getting acquainted with what the university has to offer.
Instead, I was left with courses I was kicking myself for taking after hearing my friends had a much more enjoyable and easier time in their classes. I was up for a challenge, which was never the problem, but the vast differences in what I was learning versus what my friends were learning left me feeling like I had made the wrong choices. I was under the impression that courses with the same title would generally have a similar curriculum, and the variability would be limited to teaching styles and attitudes of the professors. Instead, I was left comparing courses that could barely even speak to the same discipline, let alone the same course title.
Ironically, one of my favorite classes has been a core class: the Enduring Questions course on folk traditions and history that I took my first semester. It was evident that a ton of time was dedicated to the creation of this course—and seemingly all Enduring Questions courses offered. As many freshmen remember, we were strongly pressed by the sales pitch to register for one during orientation and through brochures sent in the mail. The Enduring Questions and Complex Problems courses receive such attention and cultivation, so what happened to the rest of the core requirements? Why isn’t the same level of standardization and detail given to courses that are meant to be just as important?
My gripe with the core classes has little to do with the subject matter itself and instead lies in its lack of standardization in the material being taught. If the university genuinely mandates these courses to promote cura personalis, carrying this mission through its motto, “Ever to Excel,” why not devote more time to careful consideration of what is being taught and intentional descriptions so students can choose courses that help them become the best version of themselves?
It is time to rebuild, reorganize, and reposition the core requirements to be as meaningful as they are touted to be.
Castalia Litos
Neuroscience major addicted to coffee, mystery novels, and hockey.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.