Matt Achtziger

Op-Ed Editor

University students face a perennial enemy: general education classes. Nearly every student can recall a time when a gen-ed class was giving them more trouble than their major classes, whether it was by requiring an expensive textbook or an overwhelming amount of work. 

Particularly, I often hear my peers majoring in technical subjects complaining about their gen-ed classes, especially those in arts or humanities. It’s a fair point; will six credits of art classes assist an engineering major at all or simply distract them from their already busy workload? 

Of course, I understand and support the purpose of general education classes. A liberal arts student myself, sampling classes from a variety of subjects betters my abilities as a student and helps prepare me for the future. Students need to be effective writers, communicators, and critical thinkers capable of empathy and information literacy.

However, do I really need 45 gen-ed credits — nearly half the requirements of my major, to accomplish those goals? Are those nine credits of natural science courses or three credits of health and wellness courses significantly helpful? Not to mention, are they worth the three semesters’ worth of tuition (around $25,000 for in-state residents) as well as housing and food costs it takes to complete them?

Many students, especially American ones, find gen-eds reminiscent of high school. After all, exposing students to a variety of different subjects is what the typical high school experience does. Utilizing these experiences, American students are then expected to select a college major that suits them.

Yet as is often the case, what’s supposed to happen is not always what actually happens. Students come from different educational backgrounds with a variety of different courses, teachers, and programs. Higher education offers an opportunity for these disparities to balance out. 

Ultimately, the most important reason why the amount of required gen-ed credits can be a problem for students is the current tuition costs. Many students need to take out tens of thousands of dollars to simply satisfy their requirements, which may include courses that do not necessarily assist them or the understanding of their major. Given the costs of requiring a lot of gen-ed credits, they may even be actively holding students back from obtaining a degree. The primary reason students drop out of higher education is the cost, so a high amount of required courses can hurt students from ever obtaining a degree at all.

So what, then, is the solution to these issues surrounding gen-eds? I believe that schools should look at cutting the amount of required gen-eds while still maintaining them as a vital part of undergraduate education. Penn State, for instance, should look at cutting the amount of required arts, natural science, and health and wellness courses in about half. Often terminal, these courses are often burdening on students both cost and time wise, and freeing up credit space could save students money and time. 

Students still need courses that ensure their writing proficiency and critical thinking skills. But until the cost of tuition is reasonable, schools should reduce the number of gen-eds required to complete a bachelor’s degree.