Alex Zubatov's column [Closing the Book, 9/15/95, YH] on the superfluity of distributional and language requirements and the importance of field concentration might have struck a sympathetic chord with me a year ago. I can somewhat understand his frustra tion at finding his perfect literature class conflicted with the only "palatable" Group IV needed to finish sophomore year distribution requirements. I've also heard Group IV majors complain about having to take "those damn Group IIs or IIIs." They think that any class you can't quantify is not gradeable. But that doesn't mean I agree with Alex's position.
Alex complains that some classes fill too small a niche; a semester on "The Tulip as Sexual Symbol in the Latter Half of 1850" is too detailed for him. But what about graduating someone from Yale who only knows how to read and overanalyze books, but only in his native language? Or someone who can design the best mousetrap ever but never got the chance to enjoy discussing, or even reading, Shakespeare or Milton?
Alex claims that "curiosity" will lead the Yale student to a rounded education, but many people, perhaps myself included, would prefer to stay where they are comfortable, and to avoid branching out into science, humanities, religious studies, or whatever subjects they currently explore because of distribution requirements.
And that is the biggest problem I had with Alex's position: the assumption that someone who comes to Yale will choose the perfect subject for four years. He complains about the language requirement, saying it doesn't teach you enough of a foreign languag e in two years. However, if you do like it or find it valuable, you can take another class in that language to improve your fluency, an opportunity you may never have considered without the language requirement. Plus, someone pointed out to me that learni ng a foreign language improves your understanding of your own, and they're right (grammar,vocabulary, etc.).
As for distribution requirements, who knows how many people, forced to take a class outside of their major, have changed majors because that required class opened up new possibilities for them? While it may be a bit parochial, the distribution requiremen ts make you ask yourself somewhat seriously if you know exactly what you're missing by choosing the classes you do choose.
But the strongest statement in favor of distribution requirements is what I said before: they make you a more-rounded person. Group II courses may teach historical analysis, but they cannot teach the student to solve problems mathematically. Not only do es a broad curriculum expand the boundaries of thought, but it can also expand the boundaries of knowledge.
Admittedly, Alex is right when he slams classes like Rocks for Jocks: a gut is a gut is a waste of time, no matter where you find it. But it is possible to take a real science, learn a bit of that scientific thinking, and even perhaps (heaven forbid!) ga in a bit of knowledge that you wouldn't have gotten without being forced to take the class to fulfill a distributional requirement.
The value of the liberal education has not diminished. In fact, as liberal arts majors become more specific, the needs for a balanced education and proficiency in a foreign language are even more pressing. Alex makes an eloquent statement for the poor Li terature major, torn between distribution requirements, an 8:30 language class, and wanting to read every book in the "Yale Canon." Unfortunately, I think he's going to have to give up on the third problem, because the first two are still more important.
-- Adam Chalom, MC '97
Copyright 1995, The Yale Herald, Inc. All rights reserved.
This article may be freely distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice, but may not be reprinted without the express written permission of The Yale Herald, Inc. Write to herald@yale.edu for additional details.