Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I'm sorry and should've been clearer. During college application time, I've overheard seniors saying they looked at schools that didn't have a common core. I assumed that meant they weren't required to take the 'common' courses like the ones I took when I was in college a millenium ago like Bio 100, Eng 101, etc.

Can I assume today's common core is similar?

I'm the pp who asked the context, this is something totally different.

Some colleges have a set of courses that everyone has to take, or that everyone has to take with some variation (e.g. pick one of these 6 history classes). Other colleges you have more choice about what to take outside your major.

Columbia and University of Chicago are two schools with reputations for extensive core requirements. Brown is a school with no core whatsoever. Most other schools are somewhere in between.

I hate to sound like a dunce but do I assume this means Brown students needn't take any of the basic courses (assuming there is no prerequisite for chosen courses)?

Here's a link

http://brown.edu/academics/college/degree/

But it appears that, in order to graduate from Brown, you only need the following:

At least 30 classes

A major (except they call it a "concentration")

2 writing courses

To attend for 8 semesters

Of course, these are high quality rigorous courses, but there's nothing like a "math" requirement or a "foreign language" requirement unless you are going for a major that requires it.

Most colleges that we have looked at have distribution requirements, meaning that you have to take a certain number of credits in quantitative courses, courses that focus on writing, the humanities, multicultural understanding, etc. Some have more detailed requirements than others. I went to Oberlin in the 1980s when there were no core or distributional requirements (don't know if it has changed; my kids aren't interested in it). That was a good arrangement for me because I knew what I wanted to study early on, and without a lot of distributional requirements to get out of the way, I was able to double major easily. I also was able to take so many upper level courses in my "principal" major that I was in fact overqualified for graduate school. I got into all of the top grad programs in my field and was told I probably could have passed my generals (master's exams) coming in. The downside, of course, is that I did not have a truly liberal education, in the sense of being exposed to a variety of disciplines, and I did not explore subjects that would have stretched me. I ended up going to law school after grad school in my chosen field and regretted never having taking certain subjects (economics, statistics, for example) that held no interest for my twenty year old self. So I personally favor a school that requires students to take at least a smattering of courses across disciplines, particularly if they are not set on any particular professional path. Also because it makes them better educated over all, IMO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I'm sorry and should've been clearer. During college application time, I've overheard seniors saying they looked at schools that didn't have a common core. I assumed that meant they weren't required to take the 'common' courses like the ones I took when I was in college a millenium ago like Bio 100, Eng 101, etc.

Can I assume today's common core is similar?

I'm the pp who asked the context, this is something totally different.

Some colleges have a set of courses that everyone has to take, or that everyone has to take with some variation (e.g. pick one of these 6 history classes). Other colleges you have more choice about what to take outside your major.

Columbia and University of Chicago are two schools with reputations for extensive core requirements. Brown is a school with no core whatsoever. Most other schools are somewhere in between.

I hate to sound like a dunce but do I assume this means Brown students needn't take any of the basic courses (assuming there is no prerequisite for chosen courses)?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I'm sorry and should've been clearer. During college application time, I've overheard seniors saying they looked at schools that didn't have a common core. I assumed that meant they weren't required to take the 'common' courses like the ones I took when I was in college a millenium ago like Bio 100, Eng 101, etc.

Can I assume today's common core is similar?

Not the same thing at all.

When I was in college, everyone regardless of major had to take at least 10 courses from a body of maybe 50 approved choices.

OP again. Yes, I remember (some not all) having to take Soc 100, Bio 100, Eng 100 (forget what else) before I could move on to other courses. I had four years of high school French so I was exempt from a foreign language which was mandatory.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I'm sorry and should've been clearer. During college application time, I've overheard seniors saying they looked at schools that didn't have a common core. I assumed that meant they weren't required to take the 'common' courses like the ones I took when I was in college a millenium ago like Bio 100, Eng 101, etc.

Can I assume today's common core is similar?

I'm the pp who asked the context, this is something totally different.

Some colleges have a set of courses that everyone has to take, or that everyone has to take with some variation (e.g. pick one of these 6 history classes). Other colleges you have more choice about what to take outside your major.

Columbia and University of Chicago are two schools with reputations for extensive core requirements. Brown is a school with no core whatsoever. Most other schools are somewhere in between.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I'm sorry and should've been clearer. During college application time, I've overheard seniors saying they looked at schools that didn't have a common core. I assumed that meant they weren't required to take the 'common' courses like the ones I took when I was in college a millenium ago like Bio 100, Eng 101, etc.

Can I assume today's common core is similar?

Not the same thing at all.

When I was in college, everyone regardless of major had to take at least 10 courses from a body of maybe 50 approved choices.

OP here. I'm sorry and should've been clearer. During college application time, I've overheard seniors saying they looked at schools that didn't have a common core. I assumed that meant they weren't required to take the 'common' courses like the ones I took when I was in college a millenium ago like Bio 100, Eng 101, etc.

Can I assume today's common core is similar?

Anonymous wrote:Can you provide a context for the sentence?

Was it on a college website, perhaps requiring the curriculum that students should have undertaken? I've seen colleges that list the courses they expect applicants to have taken. Like this:

4 years of English
4 years of Math (including 2 years of Algebra and 1 year of Geometry)
3 years of the same foreign language, or 2 years each of 2 different foreign languages

etc . . .

In that context, I would assume that the statement, "no Common Core Curriculum Requirement" would mean that the college accepts students whose schools use CCSS, as well as those that use alternative standards, either because they're in a non-CC state, or because they are private.

I would see it as an advertising gimmick, aimed at attracting people who have strong feelings on the Common Core, because no college that I know of requires students to have taken a specific curriculum, or to have had their classes aligned to a specific state's standards, so specifying "no CCSS" doesn't mean much.

Now, if you saw it on the page describing an ed school curriculum, or talking about a high school, I would interpret it differently.

This.

Can you provide a context for the sentence?

Was it on a college website, perhaps requiring the curriculum that students should have undertaken? I've seen colleges that list the courses they expect applicants to have taken. Like this:

4 years of English
4 years of Math (including 2 years of Algebra and 1 year of Geometry)
3 years of the same foreign language, or 2 years each of 2 different foreign languages

etc . . .

In that context, I would assume that the statement, "no Common Core Curriculum Requirement" would mean that the college accepts students whose schools use CCSS, as well as those that use alternative standards, either because they're in a non-CC state, or because they are private.

I would see it as an advertising gimmick, aimed at attracting people who have strong feelings on the Common Core, because no college that I know of requires students to have taken a specific curriculum, or to have had their classes aligned to a specific state's standards, so specifying "no CCSS" doesn't mean much.

Now, if you saw it on the page describing an ed school curriculum, or talking about a high school, I would interpret it differently.

Please explain exactly what this means and the advantage or disadvantage. TIA.