The public is skeptical about the value of higher education, and some of this skepticism is directed toward general education, the curriculum that students are required to complete as part of an undergraduate degree. Despite its foundational role in shaping well-rounded individuals who are prepared for work and life, general education is often viewed as irrelevant and a financial burden by students pursuing degrees. In my chapter "Strengthening General Education to Prepare Students for Today and Tomorrow," which is part of Restructuring General Education and Core Curricula Requirements, I discuss three challenges facing general education programs: their disconnect from institutional missions, the lack of integrative learning opportunities within general education programs, and the failure to clearly articulate the benefits of completing general education curricula.
One challenge is the failure of many general education programs to align with their institution's mission. Students often see general education as a collection of unrelated courses that bear little relevance to their academic and career goals. This disconnect diminishes the perceived value of general education and leads students to see general education as a waste of money. Sweet Briar College provides an example of how institutions can overcome this challenge. After near-closure in 2015, Sweet Briar restructured its general education program into the Leadership Core, a core curriculum aligned with the college's mission to develop ethical women leaders. By linking its general education curriculum to the institutional mission, Sweet Briar College has created a coherent and relevant core curriculum that makes sense in the broader developmental goals of the college.
Another challenge is the lack of integrative learning in general education programs. Many institutions offer a set of disconnected courses that don’t provide students with the opportunity to bring together in an assignment or even a course what they’ve learned across the variety of disciplines represented in the general education curriculum. This leaves students unprepared to tackle the interdisciplinary problems they will encounter in the workforce. To promote integrative learning, some institutions have created general education capstone courses that provide students opportunities to apply knowledge from what they learned across the general education curriculum to real-world problems. These experiences not only improve critical thinking and problem-solving skills but also help students understand the practical applications of their education.
Finally, general education programs often fail to clearly communicate their benefits, particularly in relation to employability. Many students and employers do not understand how general education prepares graduates for the workforce. Institutions can address this challenge by highlighting the skills developed through general education are valued by employers—such as communication, teamwork, and critical analysis—and making these connections more explicit. An external evaluation, such as certification from organizations like QA Commons, could help general education programs demonstrate how they enhance student employability. By explicitly linking general education courses to employability skills, institutions not only enhance the perceived value of these programs but also empower students to articulate these skills in job interviews and professional settings.
In an era where the value of higher education is being questioned, general education must evolve to meet the needs of students and employers. By aligning general education curricula with institutional missions, promoting integrative learning, and clearly articulating the benefits of general education, institutions can ensure that general education remains a valuable and relevant part of the undergraduate experience.
About the Contributor
Christopher T. Mayer, PhD, is a career Army officer serving as the Head of the Department of English & Philosophy and an associate professor at the United States Military Academy (West Point). His responsibilities have included a focus on strategic planning, curriculum development, assessment, faculty development, accreditation. Chris teaches courses in the areas of ethical theory, military ethics, political philosophy, and philosophy of religion. He serves as an evaluator for the Middle States Commission on Higher Education and for the Quality Assurance Commons. He is also an Association of Professional Futurists Emerging Fellow.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect the views of IGI Global.