A mechanical and aerospace engineering (MAE) student, my friend no doubt enjoys classes and topics related to his field, as well history and French courses. As we settled on the topic of distribution requirements, however, he described how unfairly the system treats engineers and favors students like me.
The University's goal is for these requirements to provide each student an equal opportunity to explore various disciplines with courses that the faculty deem necessary in our liberal arts education. But A.B. students generally look for the easiest available options to get us through our two most dreaded requirements: quantitative reasoning and science and technology. With zero shame, I enrolled in classes like Brian Kernighan GS '69's brilliant COS 109: Computers in Our World and The Chemistry of Chocolate, a beloved freshman seminar.
Students in departments like religion, philosophy and politics can easily knock out several distribution requirements before declaring their major. In my department alone, there are offerings that satisfy epistemology and cognition, social analysis, ethical thought and moral values, and literature and the arts. In several instances, I unknowingly satisfied requirements as I took classes of genuine interest.
But if only two of the seven areas of the distribution requirements push A.B. students to step out of our comfort zones, is the system really achieving its purpose? More importantly, with courses listed on the Registrar's website as tailored to "Princeton students with backgrounds in the social sciences and humanities," are engineers more of an afterthought, required to take more courses overall while still having to complete the required "holy seven" humanities classes?
As I listened to my friend vent his frustrations about being one of Princeton's forgotten children, he made a heady claim: "Could it be that, by virtue of engineers being smarter than you guys, we're able to satisfy the requirements despite our setbacks?"
As much as his comment insulted me, I acknowledged that engineering students are among the hardest-working students at Princeton, many of whom wear the look of weariness quite fashionably. And while they suffer through writing seminars and courses in the humanities, I make little effort - beyond taking classes like EGR 102: Engineering in the Modern World - to explore fields like MAE or chemical or electrical engineering.
In an ideal world, every Princeton student would be intellectually curious enough to explore any and every department, and doing so would be a privilege instead of a duty or responsibility. Since this isn't the case, what's the solution?
On one end of the spectrum, the University could offer A.B. students more courses in fields like engineering and the sciences, ones that are more accessible for the scientifically and mathematically challenged, including me.
"What if, however, there was a class like ENG 100?" my friend jokingly suggested. In the past, we've laughed at the thought of a class dedicated to analyzing the works of Dr. Seuss or another in which short poems each week would be the extent of the reading load.
Suggestions like these would work to level the playing field between A.B. and B.S.E. students. The only problem with this scenario is this: How would I explain my enrollment in a university that offers courses on "The Cat in the Hat" or "Green Eggs and Ham?" It may sound silly, but could it be that the creation of courses like these for engineers would only justify getting rid of ridiculous STs and QRs?
I understand my friend's observation that efforts should be made to provide as many opportunities to engineers as non-engineers. As much as I enjoy easy STs, however, the thought of him fulfilling an LA requirement by reading Dr. Seuss makes me wonder if it's time for students like me to suck it up and tackle CHM 201: General Chemistry.
As the University maintains its time-honored tradition of distribution requirements, perhaps it should take a deeper look at how it treats both its A.B. and B.S.E. students. Until that day comes, I'll have to accept - as much as it kills me - that no matter how hard I try, I can't be as intellectually curious as an engineer.
Walter Keith Griffin is a religion major from Philadelphia, Pa. He can be reached at wkgriffi@princeton.edu.
Read More
Public service still serves the public
Guest ContributorsIt is sometimes difficult to see the value of service in times of instability, disinvestment in public services, eroding public trust in government, and an uncertain job market. But even in times of massive turmoil, public service is still able to drive initiatives that aren’t sufficiently politicized to make newspaper headlines.
As academia and the federal workforce have adapted to rapid policy changes, the SINSI program and the students it supports have had to adapt. We are the first generation of SINSI Scholars, the SINSI program’s graduate fellows, to contend with this new era of uncertainty.
Charlie Kirk died for ideals the left has ignored
Maximillian MeyerKirk’s killing will mark a turning point. The question is whether it leads America and those who diverge from the prevailing orthodoxy on its college campuses into fear and silence, or towards courage and conviction.
Kirk’s killing will mark a turning point. The question is whether it leads America and those who diverge from the prevailing orthodoxy on its college campuses into fear and silence, or towards courage and conviction.
Why did we go to see Ketanji Brown Jackson, anyway?
Shane McCauleyAs a community, though, we should honestly acknowledge our bleak feelings on the Trump administration and look for genuine coping mechanisms, rather than compartmentalizing our anxiety into ceremonial events like these.
As a community, though, we should honestly acknowledge our bleak feelings on the Trump administration and look for genuine coping mechanisms, rather than compartmentalizing our anxiety into ceremonial events like these.