What should colleges allow for Liberal Studies credit?

An interesting issue. I’m actually quite happy that my school, Florida State University, allowed a wide range of courses to be applied to their general Liberal Arts requirements for all degrees. Yet, I still keep hearing about the “Film Appreciation” classes and “Movement Science.” I had to take 3 science classes and Astronomy was the most interesting. I think Astronomy qualifies as a “real” science class. Yet, Geology is often not considered a “real” science class. In Humanities, the Homer class was quite interesting. However, “Contemporary Literature” is considered a joke class. How do other colleges address General Studies requirements? I’ve heard that in some schools, during “diversity” class, you can write, “Kill da whitey” and get an A in African Studies. I think a course in the history of Africa would be interesting. Are the courses ruined by political correctness?

Well, I think your question confuses subject matter with course requirements.

Any of the courses you mentioned could be legitimately challenging, broadening, and generally in line with the goals of “liberal education” or general education. They could also be watered down, easy, and do little to round out one’s education.

One could argue that even at their easiest, courses from differing fields force one to approach subject matter in different ways, but I think most institutions who bother with a gen ed or liberal arts philosophy are going to reach a little further than that.

Geology is a “real science.” Now, it’s certainly true that on some campuses, it’s seen as an excellent field in which to offer “science for non science majors” course, and accordingly some hardcore scientists might sneer at that particular offering. But that attitude is short-sighted not to mention snobbish. It isn’t a challenge to the legitimacy of the field of geology–nor to the quality of such courses.

As for your “kill da whitey” comment …maybe some of your peers feel that way, but it’s quite a stupid, simplistic insult to an interesting field. “Diversity” courses, at their best, are like any other gen ed course–they require students to think about new problems and topics, or about old problems/topics in new ways. They require one to venture, intellectually, outside of what’s familiar and routine or typical in one’s other studies or major field. A simplistic “anti-white” focus in a diversity course wouldn’t accomplish that. The inherent racism in that focus is bad enough, but its anti-intellectualism is in some ways even more troubling for an educational institution.