Letter to the Editor: Distribution requirements should be reduced to nothing
To the Editor:
As the faculty
I have yet to genuinely invest in a distribution class. Instead, these courses are annoying hoops I jump through on the way to a worthier goal. I attend class based on the recommendation of a Magic 8 Ball I keep on my desk – ostensibly earning only 12 out of the 24 required credits measured in terms of attendance. I don’t take my assignments for these classes seriously because of the pass/fail
Few of my distribution courses have enriched my education, and many of them have unfairly burdened professors with disinterested students. Conversely, in courses outside my major (many of which should grant distribution credit yet do not), I have poured my heart and soul into essays, dug into material outside of class, and repeatedly visited with professors during office hours, developing valuable relationships and intellectual vibrancy.
I understand that allowing students to set their own curriculum requirements is anathema to many professors. However, I posit that we already do exactly this, regardless of graduation requirements, simply by modulating the time and energy we invest into our courses.
I fully encourage graduation requirements that require exploration. But if you limit my selection to a narrow range of topics I find uninteresting (from my conversations with peers I am far from alone in this opinion), please do not make the mistake of equating course completion with achieving a broad and meaningful education.
Alex Hayes, Baker College ’18
More from The Rice Thresher
On Monday, ESPN (somewhat prematurely) released the bracket for the 2019 NCAA Women’s Basketball Tournament. Like many of you readers, I was shocked to see that Rice was a No. 12 seed.
Though it reports to rank highest in race-class interaction, Rice is not the most socially aware campus in the United States by a long stretch, nor does it advertise itself to be.