The Red and Black

Issue date: 7/3/08 Section: Opinions

HANNAH JOHNSON

In four years here, I have taken many introductory science classes, including physical, biological and conservation sciences. Every day of the first few weeks of a given semester, friends ask me, wide-eyed, "why are you taking [insert science class]? You don't need it and it'll probably just bring your GPA down."

I always laugh and say, "but I like science." What other chance but as an undergrad will I have to take such classes?

Besides, I don't think that an adult should graduate from a four-year university without knowing that matter is composed of atoms, that ammonia and bleach is not the best floor-cleaning combination (unless you want to clean with chlorine gas), or that having six fingers is a dominant disorder likely to be passed on genetically.

Come on, stuff like that is just cool. But people are continually surprised that I would seek to learn knowledge outside my major fields of study.

Why is this?

Why is there such a chasm between so-called "North Campus people" (humanities students) and "South Campus people" (science students)?

The University has a general deficiency both in degrees requiring varied classes and in students with a curiosity about disciplines outside their own.

As a "North Campus person," I know that my major doesn't really matter that much for the future.

If I want to be an attorney or a teacher, as a myriad North Campus people do, I can study philosophy, English, anthropology, political science or a slew of other -ologies. Most employers won't care as long as I can write a decent essay and work hard in grad school.

So why, then, do our humanities degrees almost wholly exclude science, upon which much of our understanding of the world is based?

And why do so many science students struggle just to write a solid paragraph?

If the University is really endeavoring to produce healthy, capable adults, why aren't courses like Personal Finance and Basic Nutrition required for all majors?

Major universities need more holistic education. A good place to start is the quality of intro-class instructors.

My instructors in science courses have generally shown one of two dramatically different attitudes: "Let's make this interesting and fun since I know you probably won't ever take another class in my subject!" or "You don't care and neither do I, so bring your #2 pencil on test days and try not to bug me too much."

How can we allow the second attitude to persist? Over and over, I have seen the sad effect it has on students. The best way to turn an interested, engaged adult into a bored, whining college kid is to treat him or her as nothing but a child.

In order to help foster the growth of knowledge, and an appreciation for learning among students, the University should invest more time and energy into reviewing intro professors for engaging classroom practices.

And students should give the other end of campus a chance once in a while. Maybe then we could all be a bit more sure that we are graduating having gained something along with our GPAs and embossed rolls of paper.

- Hannah Johnson is a senior from Decatur majoring in English and Spanish.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools