When I ask most of my friends what they dislike about the structure of the academics of Cornell, the answer I hear most frequently are the distribution requirements — more specifically, the language requirement in Arts and Sciences. When prodded further, they say that the classes are hard [true], too time consuming and boring. Well, I could say the same about math or computer science, I reply. It is at this point in the discussion that they bring up what is useful. I get it now. It is not that a language class is too hard, too much work or mind numbingly boring in ways that STEM classes somehow aren’t, but that in their eyes, the class is simply not worth the effort.
As a sophomore, I’ve finally met enough people to start sensing a trend in the mindset of many [if not most] students here. A degree or major is usually chosen based on how much money it will help someone make in the future. Students elect classes that are not required for their major based upon how easy they will be able to earn an A, as high GPAs are often preferred in graduate school admission, in particular law, medical and other professional schools.
And so, where does learning a language fall into this formula? It is not an entry requirement for most graduate schools, and as they are notoriously hard, they are not GPA boosters. Though being multilingual is a hard skill, most students end their language learning once they finish the requirement, which is often before fluency. Even those who end up briefly fluent later forget with the learning left unattended. Thus, a language requirement is “useless” in this narrow-minded formatting. It is in fact so despised that I know multiple people who are trying to transfer out of Arts and Sciences for the sole purpose of avoiding it.
I’m a Comparative Literature major — call me biased. But, I spend a large portion of my time learning foreign languages, and I would like to argue that the language requirement should not be abolished or reduced, but the contrary. I think that every undergraduate should be required to learn a language. Cornell, along with many other universities across the nation and their students, seem to have lost the spirit of a liberal arts education. It is imperative for students to achieve breadth across the disciplines of the humanities and sciences, with the intent of creating citizens capable of critical thought. That is why the distributions in Arts and Sciences exist, and core curriculums in other schools. Students that I encounter are hyper focused on their future career goals and cannot see the value in learning things that are not directly tied to getting ahead. Although I believe it sad that the value of learning for the sake of curiosity has been lost, I understand that students have most likely acquired this mindset from parental pressure, a low income background with the incentive to get out of debt and from a capitalist system which dictates value solely through one’s ability to work and maximize profits for themselves and their employers.
But just because students are not to blame in avoiding a liberal arts education doesn’t detract from the argument. Ultimately we’ll still go on to achieve what we want with our Cornell degrees: They do not change whether or not we took a language and a couple literature classes. No one — least of all Cornell — wants to take away from earning potential. However, more than just the innate value, I believe the “trade school” mode of thinking to be wrong. There is an inescapable value of a liberal arts education in every career sector.
It is known, for example, that historically, English and other Humanities majors outperform most STEM majors on the MCAT, the standardized exam required for admission to most medical schools. How can marketers be truly successful if they do not have an understanding of the cultural and historical context of their target audience? We dramatically underrate soft skills, specifically those gained in the humanities: the ability to think critically about a piece of text, basic analytical abilities, logical reasoning, rhetorical talent and cultural understanding. We’ve seen what happens when those skills are lost — we’re living it. The common ground on which we stand as a society is crumbling beneath us, and our only way back to reason is to teach it to students, to give them all of the skills they need to be contributing members, and not just the ones they think they need.
Sophie Gross is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at [email protected].