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
In the midst of a global pandemic, Betsy DeVos, the United States Secretary of Education, announced new Title IX regulations that govern how schools handle allegations of sexual assault and harrassment. Under the guise of restoring due process, the changes harm and undermine survivors by enhancing protections for those accused of misconduct.
The COVID-19 pandemic seems to have given rise to a new phrase that has been thrown around by media outlets and social media users across the country: “We are all in this together.” Don’t get me wrong — I am not denying the fact that every person in this country has been impacted by the virus in some capacity, and I am certainly not denying the rise in local expressions of solidarity. Over the past couple months, we’ve seen students and volunteers across the country donate their time and resources to help their neighbors. Young people have come together on social media platforms to address issues surrounding mental health and online learning, creating a sense of community while also practicing social distancing. I am not denying the presence of solidarity. What I would like to discuss, however, is the fallacy of solidarity in a racialized society.
The pandemic might justify making tests optional for the upcoming admission cycle, though I still think they should be strongly encouraged for those who can take it, but I don’t think de-emphasizing tests in the long term is the right approach.