Illustration by Josh Hagler

Has this ever happened to you? You're four weeks away from graduating with a triple-major in astrophysics, economics and sculpture, when you find out you can't graduate without trudging through NATS 101: Ground Squirrels and Satellite Imaging.

Student: "But why do I have to take Gender Issues in Crop Irrigation? I'm a molecular and cellular biology major."

UA: "Be a good boy and take your GenEd-ibles. You'll dazzle the field of stem-cell research with your miscellaneous knowledge."

Student: "Really? Gee, I'm sure lucky the UA cares so much about priming my brain for the real world."

UA: "Sure, whatever. That'll be $1,200. Please pull up to the second window."

Student: "Wait ... I'd also like a milkshake. And some extra ketchup for the fries."

UA: "We're out of ketchup, but we expect more in by Spring 2004."

And so the story goes. Student takes 14 more units of basic sciences and cultural awareness; he graduates by the time he's 30 and gets a job in research. Amazingly, his knowledge of Tasmanian Food Issues does not go to waste. He is a game-show addict.

It's no secret that an appalling amount of what we learn as undergraduates is trivia. For reasons that boggle conventional wisdom, a big part of education always involves the memorization of irrelevant observations.

Even within our fields of interest, we are inundated with extraneous data. This is something I've come to accept. As a doctor, I won't commonly refer to the list of infrared spectroscopy peaks I memorized as a sophomore - but I understand why the institution wants me to be aware of various scientific fundamentals.

What I cannot understand is why I have to study a modern philosopher's proof that eating meat is the moral equivalent to massacring a busload of orphans. It's thought-provoking at best but not all that important to my life or livelihood.

Why is it required?

The stock answer is "well-roundedness." The university wants to produce students who are capable of thinking outside their respective academic foci. So, they load us up with peripheral required classes to diversify our scope of knowledge. I cannot think of anything more narrow-minded than this approach.

Specifically, I'm referring to the classes categorized under "Traditions and Cultures," "Individuals in Societies" and "Natural Sciences." Basic skills classes, like English, should be required. Remote Sensing in Geological Information Systems should not be.

UA, if you want to expose students to relevant diverse knowledge, replace GenEd requirements with student electives. Students, not administration, should guide our own academic diversification. Open up the course catalogue to students and say, "Here, take some classes outside of your major that interest you!"

Imagine if instead of taking required GenEds, students were encouraged to choose our peripheral classes from the entire pot. We could drop the TRADs and pick up classes in topics not included in our majors - classes we otherwise might not have a chance to study. The University of Arizona has a great diversity of classes. It should open these resources to students, instead of exclusively pushing a small handful of GenEd classes.

I wish I could have taken some psychology classes instead of the usual NATS. And how I would have loved to take a couple Italian classes in lieu of the History of Nutrition.

The problem is that the university thinks its prescribed classes are more important than the ones we might choose for ourselves. The university is wrong. The practical application for any given class varies drastically from one person to the next. Every one of us is an individual with unique strengths, interests and plans for the future.

By requiring non-essential classes, the university lumps us together and force-feeds us side dishes. General Education classes cover no essential information - they only exist so the university can consume our time and money, and stamp us "Thoroughly Educated." As long as this is the intent, UA should let students choose their own sides.

By pursuing our own diverse academic interests, we are far more likely to apply what we learn holistically. And because we tend to study subjects we like with the most intensity, we will surely get more out of our college education.

UA, tear down the rigid two-tier curriculum and replace it with a new "General Education" system that encourages students to shape their own well roundedness. Require a major, sometimes a minor, foundation skills and a student-selected variety of electives.

As long as we must satisfy the bureaucracy with our additional time and money, we should, at least, have the option of satisfying our own superfluous intellectual curiosity.