A lamentation of distribution requirements

Princeton attempts to justify the use of distribution requirements by the following introduction on its "General Education" website. This was also printed in the 2007-08 Undergraduate Announcement: "Princeton is committed to offering an academic program that allows each student to achieve a truly liberal education ... [The]University requirements for graduation transcend the boundaries of specialization and provide all students with a common language and common skills."

I admit I laughed when I first read this. I laughed in the most bitter and unconvinced sort of way possible. During Frosh Week I suppressed my desire to laugh (successfully, I might add), when various important administrators paraded the overwhelming necessity of distribution requirements, of the act of "exploring" (whatever that means) areas that one would have never imagined going into otherwise. Sure, they had a few success stories under their belt, a couple of "miracle" accounts to preach on from their shining pedestals. But I was still skeptical. Most of them tried very hard (and I commend them for their efforts) to communicate a sense of worldly scholarship as part of the deal. But in an age of specialization, can we really afford this luxury? Can we really approach the facility of the Da Vincis and Goethes of the past, men who in a single lifetime could legitimately call themselves scientists, gardeners, poets, playwrights and philosophers? Or better put in terms of my own personal situation, do I really have to go through the nuisance of distribution requirements when I already know exactly what I am going to do here and hereafter?

I believe the ramifications of unnecessary distribution requirements extend much further than simply frustrating the heck out of students who, like me, are perhaps too specialized for their own good. For me, compelling myself to memorize macromolecules and strands of DNA just doesn't happen. Believe me, I've tried. It does no justice to the professor, either, when he is lecturing seriously on derivatives, and all I can do is count down the minutes till the end of class.

The administration appears to pride itself, however, on the diversity of fields incorporated in Princeton's general education requirements. It seems overjoyed with the academic program as it is and the idyllic prospect that such a restraining and ironically limiting curriculum will produce an ideal and shining citizenry of each graduating class. But I say the curriculum as it stands now wastes precious time. It prevents students from ascending more quickly to a specialized field. The administration should destroy these excessive standards of "general education" common, in my experience, to high school curricula that seek to achieve a suffocating balance between all subjects.

Distribution requirements at Princeton have become more "generalized" education than anything explicitly useful or even inspirational. As students are forced to check off the laundry list of mandatory distribution areas, chances are they will go straight for the introductory survey courses. And let's face it; these classes are exactly what they make themselves out to be: broad overviews of certain fields. In short, distribution requirements push everyone along the same path, terrorizing those who later realize junior or even senior year that their transcript is missing an SA or, God forbid, an ST.

Princeton should keep step with the times, or better yet, with reality, by getting rid of (at the very least) a portion of its distribution requirements. Renaissance men, those who could generically call themselves scientists, writers, poets, philosophers and mathematicians, are today a thing of the past.

Katherine Chen is a freshman from Wayne, N.J., and can be reached at kjchen@princeton.edu.