Editorial: Pitt general ed a “D”ud

Pitt’s general-education system is like a to-do list. Students check off each mandatory task as they await the chance to fully commit to subjects they actually like. Pitt’s general-education system is like a to-do list. Students check off each mandatory task as they await the chance to fully commit to subjects they actually like.

It’s a race to completion, but what are we really getting from sitting through class upon class of subjects that have little application to our lives?

Not much, according to the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a nonprofit organization whose mission includes promoting high academic standards.

ACTA, whose board of directors includes doctors, lawyers and professors, provided its third-annual assessment of what 1,007 of the country’s colleges teach students, and the results weren’t pretty.

Three-fifths of the colleges received a grade of “C” or worse.

The study focuses on seven categories of knowledge: composition, literature, foreign language, U.S. government or history, economics, mathematics and science. Each school’s grade correlates to how many categories it passes.

Pitt’s main campus got a “D,” only passing the composition and science categories.

The rating doesn’t surprise us. We think the general education system needs a serious revamping.

First, by requiring students to study multiple courses within a certain area, i.e., natural science, Pitt is depriving us of time that could be spent exploring other areas.

Streamlining the system into fewer — but broader — categories of learning would allow students to explore new areas of thought more quickly and efficiently.

Second, requiring so many subjects that take time from students’ primary interests too often leads to taking the easy way out.

General education requirements should virtually exist as a guide for success. ACTA’s rubric, for example, values collegiate-level foreign language and economics more than several classes in a subject like international history, and Pitt would do well to consider such recommendations.

When bombarded with countless requirements, students inevitably reach for the class that will produce an “A,” not ones that consume time in an area in which they know they’re not interested.

Finally, we think the current system leaves both faculty and students dissatisfied with their general-education experiences. When students are forced into several classes that have little application to their real-world knowledge and/or general interests, they just sit. They aren’t engaged, and they aren’t learning.

And instructors struggle, too. They deserve to teach interested students. And as they teach students who are forced to be there, it’s almost certainly discouraging to realize that the material they’re passionate about is going to waste as it falls on uninterested ears.

We think fewer, broader general education classes would produce more enthusiastic, intellectual students. After all, are we here to learn things that make us more valuable, educated citizens — or opt out of challenging classes to get an “A”?