Point/Counterpoint: Community Service Requirements
by Brian Pierce • Feb 21st, 2007 at 11:07 am •
DI columnist Dan Mollison and I have this Point/Counterpoint out today on the subject of whether it would be a good idea to create a general education requirement at the university for community service.
I took the position in the DI that I support the idea, though I’d like to note that my support is hesitant. And I’d emphasize that I absolutely do not support John McCain’s proposal for the federal government drafting all young Americans into 2 years of community service. I simply think there is just as much educational value in community service as there is in the class I took for my Quantitative 1 requirement, probably moreso, so why not?
Comment by JayBandit on 21 February 2007 at 11:50 am:
I don’t think I’d mind this if it took the place of some other gen-ed requirement already forced upon us. Kevin and I had to take at least 132 hrs to graduate from UIUC, and there simply isn’t enough time in 4 years to get that done, let alone another 3 hrs for some community service requirement.
However, I’m not a big fan of forced community service, because it sort of defeats the purpose. I got dinged on scholarship applications because I didn’t have much community service; however, I was working 20-30 hours a week back in high school so I could pay for my education. I don’t think people should be faulted for earning money instead of doing something for free.
Comment by illinikc33 on 21 February 2007 at 12:05 pm:
Personally I think that the majority of gen. ed. requirements are a complete waste, but that’s an argument for another day. They would have to get rid of other requirements in order to institute this one. That being said, I wouldn’t oppose it. Even forced community service has a greater impact on everyone involved than memorizing countries for some BS GEOG 101 class.
Comment by tet on 21 February 2007 at 1:41 pm:
I am definitely with Brian on this one, as long as the requirements are begun with an incoming Freshman class (no retro-requirements for current students,) the requirement replaces one or more course requirements and students are informed of the requirement during their college-searching process.
I absolutely agree with Kevin that this would be a great deal more useful than a BS xxxx 101 class. Lets face it, those classes have been so dumbed down to prevent anyone from failing, no matter how pitiful their background, that the content is meaningless.
Especially with so many students now coming from the upper classes, it is important for them to get “out” once in a while into the real world.
[I personally would love to see some of the silver-spoon crowd teaching reading in the County Jail two or three hours a week.]
I think that it’s important to accurately gauge where the relatively small number of student hours apiece would be most efficient and to allow the students choices of which programs in which to participate.
There are more than enough experts running around the university community to accomplish the efficiency part of the deal.
In addition, this meets three other standards of mine–the broadening of educational opportunities beyond one’s narrow major focus, the necessity of educating students to be good citizens and the need for morally uplifting activities in students’ lives.
In other words, doing good does you good.
Good job, Brian.
Tom
Comment by Brian on 21 February 2007 at 2:04 pm:
Tom,
Agreed on all counts.
It seems you and illinikc might disagree on the concept of general education requirements–you say educational opportunities should be broadened beyond one’s narrow major focus, illinikc says gen. ed. requirements are a complete waste.
I tend to agree with you, but I’ve heard some decent arguments from the other side. Since everybody seems to agree with me on the community service thing, perhaps this is as good a place as any to talk about the concept of gen ed requirements in general.
So what’s your argument, illinikc? And what’s everybody else’s out there? I’d be interested to hear what people think.
Comment by tet on 21 February 2007 at 2:57 pm:
As a current member of the educational establishment, I really cannot comment more specifically on this subject, Brian.
I have a lot of very strong views on how education should be approached, but it could be argued that I have a conflict of interest that would preclude me being fair and open in public at the moment. I’m also legally restricted to a certain extent.
[In other words, I'll explain what I think about your question in about 10 months or so, after my retirement.]
Tom
Comment by illinikc33 on 21 February 2007 at 4:27 pm:
I don’t like the requirements because they stop students from taking classes that they are actually interested in that will help them in their field of work. In my case, I had to actually drop a math minor I was one class away from completing because of a non-western culture requirement.
I would like some administrator to tell me how the hell memorizing African countries will aid me in my field more than a minor in math (this was before the whole law school bit, so cut me some slack).
This brings up another point: the gen. eds. that people take to fulfill these requirements are complete jokes. The majority of these courses consist of “memorize this, take a midterm and a final, maybe write a paper, and you get an A…feel free to forget everything you memorized right after the final.” I can tell you that I remember nothing at all from my CLCIV 115 class (Greek and Roman Myth) or my GEOG 101 class. I think this is a big flaw in the “a broad education is better than a very specific one” argument, because the fact is that the majority of kids in these gen. eds. don’t give a crap. You remember what you continue to use, and you forget what you stop using. This is why I remember all kinds of math crapola and most others I know forgot calculus. Conversely, this is why Billy Joe and Brian can write and I just kind of ramble; the only writing I do is for lab reports.
Being an engineer, I didn’t have to worry about quantitative reasoning, natural sciences, or comp/adv. comp. requirements, but I’m sure most of these readers did. How is taking a physics or chemistry class going to help a Poli. Sci. or an English major? Shouldn’t students be taking some advanced level course in their field? Won’t that better prepare you for a job?
The math/science gen. eds. are the worst in my opinion. We have to take math and science at least 3 years in high school. 100-level courses in math and science here are NO DIFFERENT than high school courses, so why waste time, money, and energy on something we have already done?
I think it would be one thing if people retained the info they learn in these gen eds, but the truth is that most of them simply forget once the class is over. Time would be better spent studying what you came here to study.
Now all of that being said, I do think there are a few courses that could benefit pretty much everyone at the university: ECON and STATS. I actually use stuff from these classes all the time. But the other…sorry but a complete waste.
Comment by kofi the i hate it when i agree with brian on 22 February 2007 at 10:05 pm:
I guess I agree with Brian