The role of political science in the core curriculum?

Overall, the sense I got was that “government” (by which most meant “American government”) is an important thing to learn in college. There was even discussion about the value of a “civic” education, one that molded new citizens & gave them the tools to be active participants in our communities. But is that all politics has to offer?

At least one session was devoted to the tough choices liberal arts colleges make when developing a core curriculum. Some courses (and by extension, disciplines) lose out to others. After all, outside of requirements for majors/minors, there’s only so much time students can devote to their “gen ed” requirements. The agenda seemed to be to present a strong case for why all undergraduates should take at least one political science course (by which most meant “American government”). But is that surrendering too much?

I think political science, as a discipline, can offer more than just a civic education in American government. More importantly, I think it should offer more than that. Especially as we head deeper into the 21st century. So allow me to present some immodest proposals for a different kind of role political science could play in a core curriculum. Here are a few courses I think would help:

The Human Polity. This is a very straight-forward course. But I think political science (or sociology) could play an important role in preparing students for the new international, global reality. Students don’t just need to understand how American government works; they need to learn to appreciate the politics & cultures of other countries.

Statistics and Society. Why should math get all the fun? Yes, mathematical literacy is crucial for the future. But can those skills be only learned by taking college level calculus? I don’t think so. Besides, I think statistical literacy is more important than learning how to use a scientific calculator. Why not present a political science course that fulfills the generic “quantitative reasoning” in most gen ed requirements.

Political Literature. Who says only English majors can read good novels? I believe well-rounded college students should have an appreciation for literature. But I see no reason why they can’t take a literature course from a political science professor. Some novels are openly political (e.g. 1984). But what about some that aren’t, but can be read that way (e.g. the works of Austen, Shakespeare, or Steinbeck). Imagine teaching about bureaucracy through Kafka’s The Castle.

The New Metropolis. In our increasingly “globalized” world, more & more people are living in cities. And more & more of these cities look increasingly similar & face similar problems. A course taught w/ an international emphasis could compare cities like New Delhi, Mexico City, New York, and Buenos Aires. A course taught w/ an emphasis on American cities could integrate history, music & the arts, economics, and other disciplines. I’d love to take a course on “The American City” that included in-depth discussion of the role of hip hop as a political movement.

The Politics of Science. Who says only biologists or chemists can teach science? Many advances in science have led to political conflicts (Darwin, anyone?). Why not develop a course that provides students w/ a basic scientific literacy, but coming from a perspective that emphasizes the “political” dimensions of science. Students could explore issues like cloning, stem cell research, science funding, NASA & the space race, nuclear proliferation, global warming, etc.

Critical Thinking. I taught this course (both as a TA & an instructor) for years at Western Michigan University. The course was taught in the English, Philosophy, and Political Science departments. It was essentially classic rhetoric course, w/ an emphasis on logical fallacies. It was a required course for every undergraduate in the university. I love this course.

Those are just a few ideas. I’m sure others could develop better ones. But I wonder why we don’t often think more creatively about what a “general” undergraduate education could consist of. Or why we cling to rigid disciplinary boundaries.