As I scour the course catalog for next term, I am jotting down more classes in English, history, religion, and philosophy than can fit into my schedule. That I have to make space for a Division III class not only diminishes my ability to spend my 32 classes studying the subjects that engage me most, but also seems to offer me no distinct benefit. I see no justification for the Division III requirement and the quantitative and formal reasoning (QFR) requirement as they currently stand. They should be examined in their aims and execution: The College should refocus its resources on guaranteeing that each student graduates with quantitative abilities, and it should do away with requirements that contribute nothing to this goal.
The requirements need not disappear entirely. I am not advocating for an open curriculum. Students left to their own whims might neglect to choose courses that offer skills important to situating themselves in the world, the crux of the QFR and writing requirements. Quantitative thinking includes arithmetic and algebra, logical thinking, and the ability to read graphs and interpret data. Writing skills involve cogent argumentation and grammatical sense. Students should become competent in writing as well as mathematical thinking. In this sense, it is the College’s duty to provide some guardrails.
A concern about students’ quantitative skills came across strongly at the March faculty meeting that I attended. As the faculty discussed the QFR requirement, some expressed concern about the growing number of students who arrive at the College without having an adequate education in math. “MATH 120 TUT: Foundation in Quantitative Skills” is the remedial class for these students. It is a tutorial, though, so limited space means that those wanting to pursue STEM majors have priority in registering. The faculty at the meeting said that there are dozens of students who are left out of the course.
To me, ensuring that these students who need a remedial math course take MATH 120 is a far better use of the College’s resources than demanding that every student take at least one class labeled “QFR” and three labeled “Division III,” many of which offer little in pursuit of the end goal of adequate quantitative proficiency.
It was nice to learn about waves, sediments, and the like in my one Division III class so far, “GEOS 104: Oceanography,” but it felt trivial to my overall education. If the point of taking the class was to give me exposure to the natural world, this goal was needless. The College should refrain from telling students, through the requirement, to look into Division III. The message of the requirement is patronizing. If another aim was to give me the math and logic skills that would benefit me upon graduating, then Oceanography added no substantial value in this way.
Exploration of new topics can be wonderful, but it need not be folded into an academic requirement. Ensuring a baseline of quantitative skills merits College intervention, but encouraging students to explore the new ways of thinking offered by each department neither warrants nor benefits from College involvement. The worthwhile goal that seems to underlie the Division III requirement does not have to be carried out in such a rigid way. Even more, I think that the requirement counteracts its aim.
As I choose classes for next term, I have been thinking that if there were no Division III requirement, I’d be more inclined and able to explore fields of study in Divisions I and II that are adjacent to the ones that already excite me. These are topics that, though unfamiliar, I am more likely to find interesting.
In addition to classes in English and history, my intended majors, I would take one in sociology or American studies, fields that are distinct and show me new ways of seeing the world. Studying sociology would better inform my study of history than astronomy, which I plan to take to fulfill the Division III requirement. I expect that sociology might become a new love of mine more than I anticipate discovering a newfound passion for astronomy.
It’s paternalistic to not let us direct our own exploration. If the requirements neither make us explore productively nor better establish a universal standard of quantitative skills among graduates of the College, then they warrant serious reconsideration.
Ananya Mirchandani ’29 is a Newsletter Editor from New York, N.Y.
Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly a referenced an introductory math class as MATH 120. The name of the class is MATH 102. The article was updated at May 5 at 2:33 p.m.
