In my long academic administration career, I was rarely warned against treading into an area of potential conflict. But several times at different institutions, my “boss” indicated that General Education was not an area I could profitably address because it could be political dynamite. I heeded the advice and held my tongue. But as I watch my grandchildren prepare to go to college and I read the degree requirements of their prospective institutions, I am as perplexed as ever about the beloved Gen Ed requirements. The unrest is even more acute today as the additional “hot potato” of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) has been added to the requirements at some universities. Are the concepts enshrined in Gen Ed so profound that everyone needs to understand them? In our “What do I need to get a job?” era, should Gen Ed still be required? In addition, does the current methodology of teaching these ideas through required courses or courses in required disciplines meet the outcome our students need?
At the beginning of my own days as a university student I was given a list of the university’s Gen Ed requirements. The list named the courses to be taken to meet those requirements and a number of credits in each area that was needed. And the advising was very essentially non-existent. (I suspect this is the experience of most current provosts.) There was no rationale for the specific courses and no indication how choosing any specific course would help me develop as a biology major. There was no discussion about my career goals and, importantly, how choosing an inappropriate course might delay graduation because major program requirements might require a different course from the long list. I am sure that advising is better today that it was in 1966, but as an interested grandparent, I cannot see that the student experience has changed much. At best I am seeing a list of university core requirements and a list of specific program major requirements listed separately, but not the context that might explain why they were chosen, which courses aid achievement of desired careers, and which are safe backups, in case I chose to change my major from biology to business or vice versa.
I think the conundrum occurs because requirements are chosen without a specific career in mind. In most cases the Gen Ed requirements were decided on by the university under direction of the faculty and with the consent of the administration. The goal was, I believe, to give students insight into the breadth of universal knowledge as understood by the institution’s faculty, to make sure university graduates have a taste for different areas of possible interest and, perhaps, to bring students up to some minimal level of knowledge so that employers knew what to expect from university graduates.
The diversity of institutions and the diversity of faculty within their institutions means that the student experience has huge variation. For example, at a university that stresses engineering, the requirements might include quantitative reasoning while at a liberal arts university they might include courses on intercultural perspectives. I interpret this as meaning that general education is not something that can be generalized. Professional accreditation requirements might also skew the choices a student might have . In addition, more than one state appears to set requirements. In Arkansas, Appendix C, Section 1 of the Division of Higher Education’s Procedures for Establishing Programs sets some requirements. In Missouri, Statute 170.011 requires some knowledge of Missouri be included in the academic program. In some states, such as Michigan, the requirements for state institutions to be able to accept transfer students means Gen Ed has been somewhat standardized through the Michigan Transfer Agreement. Recent proposed legislative bills in Florida suggest the exclusion of some gender and diversity topics from Gen Ed will be made mandatory. These decisions external to the university impede the individual institutions from making their degree requirements unique.
But what happens to the student who does not follow the “traditional” path of tertiary education by attending a single institution for four to six years? Does a student path that starts in a community college, where generality is more generally the rule, mean that the student who transfers is really at a disadvantage in acquiring the engineering or the history degree? The challenge of transferability may impact students so that for a student intent on a technical degree, the community college history course that discusses the social impacts of war to the exclusion of the technological aspects may not be accepted as part of the program at the school into which the student transfers.
What are the other unintended consequences of Gen Ed? Does it impact student retention or graduation? How many students have been put off by the mathematics requirement or the social sciences requirement? At some institutions it is suggested that Gen Ed requirements be completed in the first two years (especially if the goal is transfer). But a future engineer wants to do some engineering! Many engineering programs now make sure there is a freshman engineering course, which may delay the taking of a Gen Ed course until much later in the student’s life at the institution. Is so much emphasis on the “general” impacting the efforts toward “education” that the student decides to leave college and take a job that will never develop into a career? Should the inability to pass a laboratory science course mean that the world loses a wonderfully creative graphic artist?
With all these questions, I think that now is the time to have a national conversation, perhaps hosted by ACAO or ACE, on the entire question of general education. Perhaps Gen Ed should be eliminated as antiquated. Perhaps graduation requirements should all be individualized. Or perhaps providing a rationale for why all students of any age should have a general education will help us substantiate the need for higher education for all.
Michael A. Gealt is Professor Emeritus and former Executive Vice President / Provost at Central Michigan University where he served for six years prior to his retirement in 2020. He previously served as Dean of Engineering, Mathematics and Science (and briefly Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs) at Purdue University Calumet (now Northwest) and as Dean of the College of Science at University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
