The One-Handed Economist has a good idea:

And here we have arrived at what I see as the root of the entire college problem: in order to obtain a degree, you are required to sit through what amount to another two years of high school. The material isn’t engaging, and it makes damn sure students are burned out by the time they can take the classes they’re actually interested in. So get rid of it. . . . Rather than “making students well-rounded” by forcing them to sample any number of the bad appetizers the university system has to offer, they would be free to take classes of their own interest and still get a degree in four years.

Comments

[John Seater]

There is evidence to support the theory. Brown University adopted this approach in 1970. Brown still has the policy and has enjoyed enormous popularity among applicants, whose numbers and quality both increased dramatically after the "New Curriculum" went into effect.

[John B. Chilton]

Wasn't Larry Summers trying to reinstitute some "well rounding" into the first two years at Harvard?

One of Summers' major concerns was that faculty were teaching boutique courses that fit their interests, but which were not necessarily what students wanted. Are the incentives right if a school were to go to a more fluid curriculum - will the courses faculty offer match the courses students want?

More - and this mostly does not apply to Harvard: As a greater proportion of the population goes to college more and more of them need that "two years of high school" in order to do anything useful at the college level. Not all students are Brown material. Then there's accreditation. Could your typical university break the mold? I note that though accreditation is not mandatory, most Federal student aid is contingent on accreditation.

Aside, and not on topic: I recall that Brown's New Curriculum was brought to us by the same fellow (Ira Magaziner) who brought us Hillary's Health Plan.

[JorgXMckie]

The students I get in Intro Amer Govt classes are, on average, woefully inept in the skill set needed to succeed in college and later in life. Many of them (quite probably most -- 70+%) eventually do learn these skills, but they come in seriously unprepared. And, they know next to nothing about even the most basic facts about American government, let alone how and why it works the way it does. They don't need two more years of high school in college so much as they needed two more really good years of high school in high school. I tend to presume (from listening to colleagues in other depts [although not those in the College of Ed, who think everything is hunky-dory]) this is the case in other intro type courses. We do allow test-outs and AP credit in some instances, so we may be missing the best students.

OTOH, I don't teach at Harvard or Brown. In any case, I willing to bet hard cash that, given the opportunity to get credit toward graduation, most of them would select the easiest courses they could find. They're not there, for the most part, to become 'well-rounded'. They're there to get a degree followed by a good job. They don't see any connection between 'well-rounded' and good job. Why should they? Who has shown them this in the previous 18 or so years of their life? However, being forced into a broad of intro type courses does seem to help some find interests they otherwise wouldn't have known they had. I didn't know I loved Shakespeare until I had to take a course in which the Prof really knew and could teach it. High school damn near ruined Shakespeare for me.

Let's face it, the average 18-20 year-old freshman/sophomore isn't experienced or mature enough to make good choices when faced with a choice easy and/or feel-good courses (see, e.g. most 'area studies' courses, while I'm discipline-bashing) as opposed to the unknown or perceived 'hard' courses. We have to force (some) people into an intro stats course. Usually, about half of a section of 35 not only learn it well enough to have it be of some use, a dozen or so find out that they really like it.

Just sayin'.