Harvard’s New General Education Requirement Shamelessly Rips off Stanford’s GERs

Posted by at 8:00PM

harvardthieves.jpg
The Harvard Crimson is reporting that after 4 years of deliberation, Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences today voted 168 to 14 in favor of a new general education curriculum emphasizing “the real-world applications of a liberal arts education.”
The article goes on to say:

Under the new general education requirements, students will be required to take courses in eight categories, including “Aesthetic and Interpretive Understanding,” “Culture and Belief,” “Empirical and Mathematical Reasoning,” “Ethical Reasoning,” “Science of Living Systems,” “Science of the Physical Universe,” “Societies of the World” and “the United States and the World.”

Hmm. Let’s see here.
“Empirical and Mathematical Reasoning” DB: Math Rip-off.
“Ethical Reasoning” Yeah we got that. The exact same thing.
“Science of Living Systems” NatSci, anyone?
“Science of the Physical Universe” Sounds a lot like our EngrAppSci (courses fulfilling that requirement here).
“The United States and the World” They just mushed together American Cultures (AmerCul) and The Global Community (GlobalCom). Nice try, Harvard.
What’s most pathetic about this sad excuse for thievery is in what they left out, not what they included. Of our Education for Citizenship GERs, Harvard notably forgot to “borrow” our Gender Studies requirement. This is one of the most important ones, I think. Fulfilling an American Cultures GER, for example, doesn’t require the average (American) student to broaden her metaphorical horizons as much as taking a course on, say, feminist history, or another such course which “address[es] gender conceptions, roles, and relations” (Registrar’s Office).
God, Harvard’s lame.

Share

2 Responses to “Harvard’s New General Education Requirement Shamelessly Rips off Stanford’s GERs”

  1. Another rational voice says:

    Wow, Harvard is so lame.
    It also ripped off the idea of having lawns in front of building. And that whole “dining hall” thing? Definitely Stanford’s. Pathetic.
    You know what’s the worst? Harvard’s so idiotic, it steals things from itself. Like the “Core” program it’s had for a few decades. The one with “Quantitative Reasoning,” “Moral Reasoning,” “Life Science,” “Physical Science,” and–you guessed it–nothing remotely related to Gender Studies.
    Losers.

  2. FAIL says:

    this analysis would make any sense if you weren’t too obtuse to realize that bio/biochem and pchem/phys represent two faces of the science spectrum. Living systems and natural science are both referring to the same fields…in fact, engrappsci doesnt even have much to do with “physical unvierse” if we’re talking theoretical pchem/physics.
    Figures you’d be mad that there is no gender studies requirement. People like you are the reason feminism is painful to endure. I’d say harvard’s lack of such a requirement is good…one less bullshit class I have to take. This is kind of similar to what the sociologists and most “equal rights” advocate liberals do: create an issue where it doesn’t exist.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION - LEAVE A REPLY


Comments are moderated and will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. Please do not be alarmed if your comment does not show up immediately. We will get it posted soon.