The Scaffolding of the Mind: A Journey into the True Purpose of a Core Education

Introduction: The Checklist and the Grudge

I remember the feeling distinctly.

It was the first week of my sophomore year, and I was staring at my course registration portal with a familiar sense of dread.

I was a physics major, on a mission.

My path was supposed to be a clean, straight line of calculus, quantum mechanics, and electromagnetism, leading directly to a lab, a career, a future I had meticulously planned.

But standing in my way was a barricade of mandatory detours: Art History, Introduction to Sociology, a literature requirement.

To me, they weren’t opportunities; they were obstacles.

They were the academic equivalent of a tollbooth on a highway I was already paying dearly to travel.

This sentiment, this grudge against the general education or “core” curriculum, is a near-universal experience for the modern university student.

We arrive on campus, often with a clear career path in mind, only to be told we must spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours on what feel like repeats of high school.¹

These courses seem to have little to no relevance to our chosen fields.²

I remember sitting in a film appreciation class, watching a Nicholas Cage movie, and thinking, “How does this relate to my physics degree?”.³

For many of us, the core curriculum is perceived as an outdated, time-consuming, and ruinously expensive system designed more as a revenue stream for universities than a genuine effort to enrich our minds.³

It’s a checklist to be completed, a series of boxes to be ticked with minimal effort before the

real learning can begin.

My friends and I weren’t alone in this cynicism.

We were part of a generation conditioned to view higher education as a transactional means to an end: a degree for a job.

We saw our majors as vocational training, and anything outside that narrow scope was a distraction.

We would have agreed wholeheartedly with the student who lamented, “We are 18+.

We’re not in kindergarten anymore.

We got our generals in high school.

Get out of the way so we can succeed”.¹

And yet, a quiet, persistent question nagged at me then, and it drives this inquiry now.

Is this feeling of resentment, so common and so deeply felt, truly justified? Or have we, in our laser-focused pursuit of a career, missed the point entirely? Is it possible that within this mandatory intellectual wandering—this seeming collection of disconnected and irrelevant classes—lies a deeper purpose, a hidden architecture for the mind that we have been conditioned to overlook? This is the story of a journey to find the answer, a journey that begins with a grudge but ends with a revelation about the true, profound, and indispensable value of a foundational education.

Part I: Cracks in the Foundation – The Limits of Specialization

The Inciting Incident

My moment of reckoning came not in a classroom, but two years into my first job at a promising tech startup.

I was part of a team that had developed a groundbreaking new data visualization tool.

On paper, we were brilliant.

We had the specialized knowledge, the coding prowess, the mathematical rigor.

We had, in short, everything my focused physics degree was supposed to provide.

We built the engine, and it was a masterpiece of technical elegance.

The problem was, no one could drive it.

Or, more accurately, no one understood why they should.

We failed, spectacularly, to communicate its value.

In meetings with potential investors and non-technical stakeholders, our explanations, dense with jargon and abstract concepts, were met with blank stares.

We couldn’t tell a compelling story.

We couldn’t anticipate the ethical concerns our tool might raise in different social contexts.

We couldn’t build a bridge from our world of algorithms to the world of human needs and business realities.

Our perfect engine sat in a garage, gathering dust, because we had neglected to learn how to build the car around it, let alone the road it was meant to travel on.

My experience was a personal variation on a theme I would later discover is common among those who pursue a narrow path.

I had become, in the words of one student who fled a STEM major for the humanities, a “math robot, unthinking and unfeeling”.⁵

I had immense skill in a single domain but was woefully unprepared for the messy, interconnected reality of the world.

I had been so focused on the “what” of my education that I had completely ignored the “how” and the “why.” I had all the right answers but none of the right questions.

This feeling of being a “failure for not being able to hack it” wasn’t about intellectual capacity; it was about realizing the tools I had spent years acquiring were insufficient for the job at hand.⁶

The Employer’s Paradox

This personal failure threw me into a state of professional confusion.

I had done everything right, followed the prescribed path to employability, and yet I was fundamentally ill-equipped.

It was then that I began to notice a strange paradox in the professional world.

While universities and students were increasingly focused on hyper-specialization as the ticket to a good job, employers were singing a different tune.

They were desperate for what are often dismissively called “soft skills.”

In today’s fast-paced, complex business environment, organizations are desperately seeking employees who can do more than just execute technical tasks.

They need people who can think critically, evaluate ambiguous information, identify assumptions, and consider alternative perspectives.⁷

They want team members who can solve problems effectively, communicate clearly, and collaborate with diverse groups.⁹

These are not niche skills for managers or humanities majors; they are considered a cornerstone for success across all industries, from tech and finance to law and consulting.⁸

As routine tasks become increasingly automated, the uniquely human capacity for complex cognitive work—analyzing, judging, reasoning—becomes the most valuable asset an employee can possess.⁸

The irony was staggering.

The very skills my colleagues and I lacked—the ones that led to our project’s demise—were the same ones I had once dismissed as the fluffy, irrelevant domain of my general education requirements.

The purpose of a broad, liberal arts-style education, I was beginning to learn, is precisely to cultivate these foundational, transferable abilities: communication, critical and analytical reasoning, and global and cultural awareness.¹¹

This realization revealed a fundamental disconnect at the heart of modern higher education.

Students, driven by the anxiety of a competitive job market, view college as a form of specialized job training.¹

They see general education courses as an expensive and frustrating detour from that goal.²

Meanwhile, employers across all sectors are reporting a critical need for the broad, adaptive thinking skills that a general education is designed to foster.⁷

The student’s frustration, therefore, is not irrational.

It is a logical response to an educational system that has failed to articulate its own value.

We resent the core curriculum because we are never given a compelling story about why it matters.

We see a checklist of courses, not a deliberate, integrated program for developing the very competencies that are most in demand.

A Seed of Doubt

This paradox planted a seed of doubt that would eventually dismantle my entire philosophy of education.

If hyper-specialization was not the silver bullet I had believed it to be, and if those “useless” courses held the secret to the skills that truly mattered, then what had I missed? What was the original blueprint for this system that now seemed so broken and incoherent? I felt compelled to become a detective of my own miseducation, to dig beneath the surface of the checklist and unearth the foundation that was supposed to have been built there.

My journey into the true purpose of the core curriculum had begun.

Part II: Unearthing the Blueprint – A Hidden History

My investigation started not in an archive, but with a simple question: Where did this whole idea of a “core curriculum” come from? I had always assumed it was an ancient, unchanging feature of university life.

The reality, I discovered, was far more dynamic and born of a specific, urgent crisis.

It was a blueprint with a purpose, one that had been lost, redrawn, and fragmented over time.

The Original Vision (Post-WWI)

The first true general education program in the United States was not a sprawling menu of choices but a single, required course launched at Columbia University in 1919.¹⁷

In the devastating aftermath of World War I, faculty felt an urgent need to create a course that would prepare students to grapple with “the insistent problems of the present”.¹⁷

Initially a “war issues” course designed to explain America’s involvement in the conflict, it was transformed into a “peace issues” course called Contemporary Civilization.¹⁸

The goal was explicitly moral and civic.

As one dean wrote, the course was founded on the principle that “an understanding of the worth of the cause for which one is fighting is a powerful weapon in the hands of any army”.¹⁸

It was an attempt to equip a generation of future leaders with the intellectual and ethical tools to prevent such a global catastrophe from ever happening again.

This was no mere survey.

It was an integrated, interdisciplinary examination of the foundational texts and ideas of Western society, designed to foster a shared intellectual experience and prepare students for the responsibilities of democratic citizenship.¹⁷

This vision was echoed by figures like Martin Luther King, Jr., who, in a 1947 article for his campus newspaper, argued that education’s function is to teach one to think intensively and critically, but that education “which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society”.²⁰

He asserted that character and moral development are necessary to give the intellect humane purposes, warning that “the most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason, but with no morals”.²⁰

The Classical Roots (Antiquity to the Renaissance)

Digging deeper, I found that Columbia’s vision was itself a modern echo of a much older educational architecture.

The classical education of ancient Greece and medieval Europe was built upon the seven liberal arts, which were divided into two stages: the Trivium and the Quadrivium.²¹

The Trivium, the foundation, consisted of grammar, logic, and rhetoric.

The Quadrivium followed, with arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy.²²

This was not a curriculum of content in the modern sense.

It was a curriculum for forging the very tools of learning.

As one analysis puts it, classical education taught students how to learn, whereas much of modern education teaches them what to learn.²³

The Trivium’s stages represented a clear, sequential process for building intellectual capacity.

First, in the

grammar stage, one learns the mechanics of language and how to define terms—the basic components of knowledge.²³

Second, the

logic stage teaches one how to arrange those components into sound, fallacy-free arguments.²³

Finally, the

rhetoric stage teaches one how to apply grammar and logic to communicate those arguments persuasively and effectively.²³

This system was designed to produce a person who was not just knowledgeable, but articulate, rational, and virtuous.²⁴

It was a blueprint for building a thinking mind from the ground up.

The Great Fragmentation

What happened to this coherent vision? My historical detective work revealed a slow, century-long process of fragmentation.

The clear, purposeful architecture of the original core curriculum gradually eroded, replaced by a sprawling, incoherent structure that one researcher aptly called the “cafeteria-style, self-service model”.²⁵

This shift began in the mid-20th century and accelerated in the 1960s and 70s as prescriptive curricula fell out of fashion.²⁶

The core fractured into a system of “distribution requirements,” where students choose from a vast menu of introductory courses to satisfy broad categories like “humanities” or “social sciences”.²⁵

Instead of a shared intellectual journey, general education became a private, solitary exercise in checking boxes.²⁸

The reasons for this were complex: faculty became more focused on specialized research and less interested in teaching introductory courses, and campus politics led to departments lobbying to get their courses included in the general education list to ensure enrollment numbers.¹⁹

The result was chaos.

The role of a discipline like history, once a clear pillar of the core, became hopelessly muddled.

In some curricula it’s a humanities course, in others a social science; sometimes it fulfills a writing requirement, other times a diversity credit.

In many distribution systems, a student can now graduate without ever taking a single history course.²⁶

The curriculum lost its coherence, becoming a collection of disconnected parts rather than an integrated whole.

This loss of a unifying story is the critical wound from which the modern core curriculum suffers.

The original “why”—to create citizens capable of confronting complex societal problems—was replaced by a bureaucratic “what”—a checklist of distribution requirements.

The classical narrative of forging the tools of thought was similarly lost.

Without a compelling story to connect the courses and explain their collective purpose, they appear random and meaningless to students.

The common complaint that gen-eds are a “waste of time” is not just a critique of individual classes; it is a symptom of a curriculum that has lost its own plot.³

The Common Core Controversy

The most recent chapter in this story is the Common Core State Standards initiative, launched in 2010.

It was a well-intentioned, large-scale attempt to address the very fragmentation and lack of rigor that had come to define American K-12 education.³⁰

Proponents argued it would create a clearer, more consistent set of standards focused on critical thinking skills rather than rote memorization of fragmented knowledge.³²

However, the implementation was deeply flawed and became a case study in how not to enact educational reform.

The standards were created in a top-down fashion by consultants and academics, with little input from the K-12 educators who would be responsible for teaching them.³²

States were coerced into adopting them through federal grant incentives, undermining local control.³²

Most damagingly, the rollout was not accompanied by the necessary resources, training, or support for teachers.

A 2014 Gallup poll found that 62% of teachers felt “frustrated” and 65% felt “worried” by Common Core, with nearly half of those in adopting states saying they had not received sufficient support to implement it.³⁴

Teachers felt overwhelmed by the mandate to implement an entirely new curriculum all at once, without adequate time to digest the material or develop new lesson plans.³⁵

The intense focus on new, more difficult standardized tests created a culture of fear and anxiety, with many teachers feeling it was unfair to link their evaluations to student scores on these new assessments.³²

Students, in turn, found the new approaches confusing and stressful, particularly in math, where new methods were introduced without a proper transition plan.³⁵

The Common Core, which aimed to restore coherence, instead became a source of widespread frustration and anger, a powerful reminder that even the best-laid blueprints will fail if the builders are not supported, trained, and respected.

Part III: The Cognitive Architecture – How Knowledge Actually Works

My journey through the history of the core curriculum had left me with a diagnosis: the system was suffering from a loss of narrative.

It no longer had a compelling reason for its own existence.

But this diagnosis didn’t answer the deeper question: Was the original premise—that a broad, foundational education is essential—even correct? To find that answer, I had to turn from history to science, specifically the cognitive science of how we learn.

It was here, in the study of the mind itself, that I found the most powerful justification for a core education, and a new metaphor to replace the broken one of the checklist.

Metaphor Shift: From Checklist to Architecture

The language we use to talk about thinking is saturated with architectural metaphors.

We build arguments, support them with evidence, look for solid footing in our theories, and hope our ideas don’t fall apart.³⁹

This is no accident.

As the philosopher Rudolf Arnheim claimed, all systems of thought take the form of architectural structures; we organize ideas in a perceptual, spatial Way.³⁹

This insight provided the “eureka” moment of my journey.

I realized the “checklist” metaphor was fundamentally wrong.

Core classes are not decorative items to be ticked off a list.

They are the essential, often unseen, scaffolding and foundation of the mind.

A liberal arts education is not about collecting disparate facts; it is the act of constructing a cognitive architecture—a stable, flexible, and integrated structure for lifelong learning and thinking.⁴⁰

Laying the Foundation: The Primacy of Factual Knowledge

The first step in any construction project is to lay a solid foundation.

In the architecture of the mind, that foundation is factual knowledge.

This idea runs counter to a popular modern myth that education is about “skills, not facts.” Cognitive science, however, shows this to be a false dichotomy.

Critical thinking is not a generic skill that can be deployed in a vacuum; it is deeply intertwined with domain-specific knowledge.⁴³

In his seminal article “How Knowledge Helps,” cognitive scientist Daniel T.

Willingham explains that knowledge is the “grist for the mill” of cognition.⁴³

A rich base of factual knowledge does several critical things:

1. It enhances comprehension. When you read a text, you are constantly making unconscious inferences to fill in the gaps. For example, to understand the sentence, “He was a real Benedict Arnold about it,” you must know who Benedict Arnold was.⁴³ Without that piece of factual knowledge, the sentence is meaningless. A broad knowledge base provides the necessary context to make these inferences quickly and automatically, allowing for smooth, efficient reading.⁴³
2. It expands the capacity of working memory. Our working memory—the mental space where we actively process information—is notoriously limited. Knowledge helps overcome this limitation through a process called “chunking.” To someone who doesn’t know chess, a board is a collection of 32 individual pieces. To an expert, it is a set of familiar patterns, or “chunks,” that can be processed as single units. This chunking, which is entirely dependent on background knowledge, frees up precious space in working memory that can then be used for higher-level strategic thinking.⁴³
3. It makes learning easier. Knowledge is cumulative; it grows exponentially. The more you know, the easier it is to learn more because you have a larger network of existing concepts to which you can attach new information. Trying to learn about a completely new topic is difficult because there is no mental “velcro” to make the new facts stick. A student with a solid foundation in biology will learn new biological concepts far more easily than one without.⁴⁴

This is the first and most fundamental purpose of a core curriculum.

The seemingly random assortment of courses in science, history, and the arts is designed to build a broad, stable foundation of factual knowledge.

This foundation is not the end product of education; it is the essential prerequisite for all subsequent, more complex, intellectual construction.

As René Descartes analogized, to build a stable house of knowledge, one must first clear away the sand of doubt and find the bedrock of certainty on which to build.⁴⁵

Building the Frame: The Power of Interdisciplinary Thinking

Once the foundation is laid, the architect must erect the frame.

In our cognitive architecture, this frame is built through interdisciplinary thinking—the ability to connect ideas and concepts across different domains.

Our minds do not store information in isolated silos; we learn by making connections.⁴⁶

An education that presents subjects in isolation—history here, science there—creates a fragmented and ultimately weak intellectual structure.⁴⁷

Interdisciplinary learning is what builds the load-bearing walls and cross-beams of the mind.

It is the cognitive equivalent of framing a house, connecting disparate points to create a coherent and resilient whole.

Cognitive science research shows that this approach fosters a host of crucial abilities:

• It develops perspective-taking. By examining a single complex problem—like climate change or social inequality—through multiple disciplinary lenses (scientific, historical, economic, ethical), students learn to understand and integrate conflicting insights.⁴⁸ They see that real-world problems are rarely reducible to a single, simple cause or solution.
• It enhances critical thinking. Students learn to question how knowledge is created and how methodologies can vary between disciplines.⁴⁶ This fosters the ability to recognize bias, tolerate ambiguity, and appreciate ethical concerns.⁴⁸
• It promotes synthesis and creativity. The ability to draw analogies—to see the underlying structural similarities between different systems—is a cornerstone of higher-order thinking.⁴⁹ An expert physicist, for example, solves a new problem by recognizing its deep structural similarity to a problem she has solved before, even if the surface features are different.⁴³ An interdisciplinary education is, in essence, a training ground for this kind of analogical reasoning. It teaches students to see the world not as a collection of separate facts, but as an interconnected system, like a complex crossword puzzle where the answer to “17 Down” must be compatible with the answer to “4 Across”.⁵¹

This is the structural purpose of a core curriculum.

The requirement to take courses in the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities forces the student to build connections between different ways of knowing.

A history course is not just about history; it is a lesson in how to analyze evidence and construct a narrative.

A biology course is not just about cells; it is a lesson in systems thinking.

When viewed through this lens, the core curriculum is revealed not as a random assortment of subjects, but as a deliberate exercise in cognitive cross-training, designed to build a mind that is flexible, integrated, and strong.

Wiring the Building: The Role of the Humanities

A structure with a solid foundation and a strong frame is functional, but it is not yet a home.

It needs to be wired for electricity, plumbed for water, and finished with the details that make it a livable, human space.

In our cognitive architecture, this is the unique and irreplaceable role of the humanities.

If the sciences and social sciences provide the “what” and “how” of the world, the humanities—literature, philosophy, history, art—provide the “why.” They are the wiring that carries the currents of meaning, ethics, and empathy through the structure.

They challenge us to move beyond mere efficiency and ask questions of purpose and value.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. powerfully argued, a purely utilitarian education can create a “dangerous criminal” gifted with reason but no morals.²⁰

The humanities provide that moral compass.

They do this primarily by cultivating empathy.

Reading a novel or studying a historical period from multiple perspectives forces us to step outside of our own experience and inhabit the minds and worlds of others.⁵²

This act of imaginative connection is not a frivolous luxury; it is a critical skill for navigating a diverse and complex world.

It allows us to understand the “why” behind human behavior, to see the cultural context that shapes our lives, and to feel a connection to people who are unlike ourselves.⁵³

A liberal arts education, at its best, sensitizes students to the plight of the marginalized and neglected, and it provides the tools to be an independent thinker and a resilient person, capable of living with and learning from life’s contradictions and frustrations.⁵²

It is the part of our education that makes our intellectual house not just a shelter, but a home—a place of warmth, meaning, and human connection.

Part IV: Blueprints for the Future – Rebuilding the Core

My journey had revealed a profound gap between the potential of a core education and its reality.

I now understood the “why”—the historical purpose and cognitive science that validated a broad, foundational education.

But the “how” remained a problem.

The dominant “cafeteria-style” model is a failed blueprint, resulting in a fragmented and frustrating experience for students.²⁷

So, how can we rebuild the core for the 21st century? How can we design an educational architecture that is not just a historical curiosity but a vibrant, effective, and engaging experience for today’s learners?

Fortunately, educators and institutions are already experimenting with innovative new blueprints.

These models move away from passive content delivery and toward active, integrated, and purposeful learning.

Blueprint 1: The Workshop – Project-Based Learning (PBL)

One of the most promising models reframes education as a workshop where students are active creators, not passive consumers.

In Project-Based Learning (PBL), the learning process is driven by a sustained, in-depth inquiry into a complex, real-world question or problem.⁴⁷

Crucially, the project is not a “dessert”—a fun activity tacked on at the end of a unit.

It is the “main course”.⁵⁶

The project itself provides the framework for learning rigorous academic content and skills.

For example, instead of just reading about environmental science in a textbook, students might be tasked with a project like, “How can we improve the water quality of our local river?” To answer this question, they would need to learn and apply concepts from biology, chemistry, and statistics; they would need to develop research, collaboration, and communication skills; and they would need to present their findings and proposed solutions to a public audience, perhaps even the city council.⁵⁶

This approach shifts the focus from memorizing facts to applying knowledge to solve authentic challenges.⁵⁸

A growing body of research demonstrates that rigorous PBL is a powerful lever for student success.

Multiple studies have shown that it improves academic achievement, including on high-stakes exams like AP tests, and fosters deeper, long-lasting retention of content.⁵⁵

Furthermore, it is particularly effective at developing the very skills employers crave: critical thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, and communication.⁶⁰

By engaging students’ hearts and minds in work that has a real-world impact, PBL gives them a powerful sense of agency and purpose.⁶⁰

Blueprint 2: The Custom Home – Interdisciplinary & Open Curricula

While PBL provides a new structure for individual courses, other models rethink the architecture of the entire degree.

Interdisciplinary and open curricula give students the agency to become the architects of their own education, designing a course of study that is tailored to their unique interests and goals.

Interdisciplinary Studies programs are explicitly designed to break down the silos between traditional departments.

They allow students to integrate knowledge and methods from multiple fields to tackle complex problems and forge new insights.⁴⁶

These programs are ideal for students whose passions don’t fit neatly into a single box.

For example, a student interested in opening a naturopathic medicine practice might combine courses in biology, health sciences, and traditional healing.⁶³

Another might combine studies in agriculture and public health to advocate for sustainable food systems in marginalized communities.⁶³

This approach equips graduates with a versatile and customized skill set that is highly valued in a rapidly changing job market.⁶⁴

Open curricula, like the one pioneered by Brown University, take this philosophy of student agency a step further.

They do away with most or all general education requirements, giving students the freedom to construct their entire academic journey in consultation with advisors.⁶⁶

This approach fosters introspection, self-discovery, and intellectual creativity, attracting students who are self-motivated and eager to forge their own path.⁶⁶

Both interdisciplinary and open models are a direct response to the rigidity of traditional curricula, offering a flexible and personalized architecture for learning.

Blueprint 3: The Building Inspection – Competency-Based Education (CBE)

A third innovative blueprint addresses a fundamental flaw in the traditional model: its reliance on “seat time” as a proxy for learning.

Competency-Based Education (CBE) shifts the focus from how long a student sits in a class to what they can actually do with what they know.⁶⁷

In a CBE system, students progress by demonstrating mastery of clearly defined, explicit competencies.⁶⁹

This model has several profound implications.

First, it allows for flexible and personalized pacing.

A student who already has experience in a subject can demonstrate competency quickly and move on, while a student who struggles with a concept can take the time they need to master it without being pushed ahead prematurely.⁷⁰

Second, it makes learning outcomes transparent to both students and employers.

The curriculum is built around skills that are often directly applicable to the workplace, and graduates have a clear record of the specific abilities they have mastered.⁷¹

CBE is not a checklist of tasks to be completed once; it requires students to demonstrate their skills over time, in multiple contexts, and assessed by multiple methods.⁶⁸

This approach improves equity by serving diverse learners and mitigating bias in assessment.⁶⁸

It functions as a rigorous quality control system for education, ensuring that the final structure is not just built, but built to last.

These three blueprints—PBL, Interdisciplinary/Open Curricula, and CBE—are not mutually exclusive.

They represent a philosophical shift toward an education that is more active, integrated, personalized, and accountable.

They offer a vision for rebuilding the core curriculum, transforming it from a frustrating checklist into a powerful and purposeful intellectual journey.

To clarify the distinctions between these approaches and the traditional model, the following table provides a comparative overview.

This synthesis reveals the fundamental shift from a content-delivery paradigm to one focused on active skill development, integration, and demonstrated mastery.

Model	Core Philosophy	Student Experience	Assessment Focus
Traditional Distribution	Breadth of knowledge through exposure to various disciplines. 25	A “cafeteria-style” selection of disconnected introductory courses. 25	Course-specific grades, seat time.
Interdisciplinary Studies	Integration of knowledge by connecting multiple fields to solve complex problems. 46	Customized curriculum, often with a capstone project that synthesizes learning. 64	Synthesis of ideas, holistic understanding, application to complex problems.
Project-Based Learning (PBL)	Learning through sustained inquiry and the creation of a public product. 56	Active, collaborative work on authentic, real-world challenges. 47	Application of content and skills, public presentation of work, collaboration.
Competency-Based Education (CBE)	Progression based on demonstrated mastery of specific skills and knowledge. 68	Flexible, often self-paced, learning pathways tailored to the individual. 70	Demonstration of explicit, predetermined competencies through various assessments.

Conclusion: The View from the Completed Structure

My journey began with the narrow perspective of a student staring at a checklist, frustrated by what seemed like a series of pointless requirements.

It ends here, with a view from a much higher vantage point.

The path of discovery—through history, cognitive science, and the innovative blueprints of modern reformers—has led me to a new and profound appreciation for the very educational structure I once resented.

I now see my own story reflected in the testimonials of countless others who came to value their broad education only in hindsight.

I recognize the student who found that their general education courses provided the foundational writing and thinking skills they needed to excel in their major-specific classes later on.⁷⁴

I understand the liberal arts graduate who realized their education had taught them a certain resilience, a “willingness to work and live with” life’s difficulties and contradictions.⁵⁴

And I identify with the student who, after sampling various disciplines, found that the journey of exploration was more important than the destination, shaping them into a more well-rounded and adaptable person.⁷⁵

A liberal arts education, one student wrote, “has given me the tools to be an independent thinker”.⁵⁴

The core curriculum, when properly conceived and executed, is not about preparing you for your first job.

That is the shortsighted and utilitarian view that has led our educational system astray.

Its true purpose is far grander and more enduring.

It is about constructing the cognitive architecture for a whole life.

It lays the broad foundation of knowledge that makes all future learning possible.

It erects the integrated, interdisciplinary frame that allows for flexible, creative, and critical thought.

And it wires the entire structure with the humanities, infusing it with the empathy, ethical reasoning, and sense of purpose that make a life meaningful.

The ultimate aim of a liberal arts education, as one writer powerfully stated, is to teach students not how to be, but how to become.⁵²

The word “liberal” in liberal arts comes from the Latin

liber, meaning “free”.⁵²

The true purpose of this education is not to train a worker, but to free a mind.

It is a slow, sometimes frustrating, and often nonlinear process.

It is not a checklist to be rushed through, but an architecture to be carefully and thoughtfully built over time.

The view from the completed structure—the perspective of a mind that is not just trained, but educated—is worth the journey.

It is a vision our schools and universities must work to revive, for the sake of their students and for the future of our complex, interconnected world.

Works cited

1. College general ed requirements are ridiculous and need to go. : r/unpopularopinion, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/15jg2i4/college_general_ed_requirements_are_ridiculous/
2. Students should have fewer requirements to graduate when it comes to core classes, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.thelariatonline.com/students-should-have-fewer-requirements-to-graduate-when-it-comes-to-core-classes/
3. College degrees should not require core credits – The University Star, accessed August 12, 2025, https://universitystar.com/24586/opinions/college-degrees-should-not-require-core-credits/
4. General education courses at US universities are a money-making scam – Reddit, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1i42hnf/general_education_courses_at_us_universities_are/
5. Depressed STEM major wishing he was doing humanities for the money after 🙁 : r/UofT, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/UofT/comments/1ihz3ne/depressed_stem_major_wishing_he_was_doing/
6. Struggling with guilt after switching from STEM to humanities : r/college – Reddit, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/college/comments/1926jxd/struggling_with_guilt_after_switching_from_stem/
7. Critical Thinking: An Essential Skill Employers Seeking – Learnsignal, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.learnsignal.com/blog/essential-skill-employers-seek-critical-thinking/
8. Five Critical Thinking Skills Essential for Success in Pre-Employment Assessments, accessed August 12, 2025, https://careerservices.cwu.edu/blog/2025/05/16/five-critical-thinking-skills-essential-for-success-in-pre-employment-assessments/
9. Unleashing Talent: Empowering Employees through Critical Thinking – Kepner-Tregoe, accessed August 12, 2025, https://kepner-tregoe.com/blogs/empowering-employees-through-critical-thinking/
10. Developing Critical Thinking Skills to Enhance Employability – GVI, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.gviusa.com/blog/smb-developing-critical-thinking-skills-to-enhance-employability/
11. What is General Education? | Office of Institutional Effectiveness – University of Louisiana at Lafayette, accessed August 12, 2025, https://institutionaleffectiveness.louisiana.edu/offices/academic-programs/general-education-curriculum/what-general-education
12. What Are General Education Requirements? Purpose and Classes | GCU Blog, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.gcu.edu/blog/gcu-experience/what-are-general-education-requirements
13. What is General Education? Its Purpose and Impact Explained, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.snhu.edu/about-us/newsroom/education/why-are-general-education-courses-important
14. Exploring High School Subjects & Finding Your Passion – College Advisor, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.collegeadvisor.com/resources/high-school-subjects/
15. What is Critical Thinking and Why is it Valuable in the Workplace? | Performance Management Consultants – PMC Training, accessed August 12, 2025, https://pmctraining.com/articles-and-resources/what-is-critical-thinking-and-why-is-it-valuable-in-the-workplace/
16. The Case for Skills-Based General Education – Cleary University, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.cleary.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/The-Case-for-Skills-Based-General-Education-A-New-Approach-to-Ensure-Value-and-Relevance.pdf
17. About the Core | Columbia College, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.college.columbia.edu/core-curriculum/about
18. Core Curriculum (Columbia College) – Wikipedia, accessed August 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Curriculum_(Columbia_College)
19. Colleges must revive general education (opinion), accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/cornerstone/documents/colleges-must-revive-general-education-opinion.pdf
20. “The Purpose of Education” | The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute, accessed August 12, 2025, https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/purpose-education
21. Quadrivium – Wikipedia, accessed August 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrivium
22. Trivium and Quadrivium | The Seven Liberal Arts, accessed August 12, 2025, https://liberalarts.online/trivium-and-quadrivium/
23. The Trivium: Why American Public Education Doesn’t Want Students …, accessed August 12, 2025, https://thescarlet.org/18572/opinions/the-trivium-why-american-public-education-doesnt-want-students-to-think/
24. What is Liberal Arts Education? | Top Universities, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.topuniversities.com/blog/what-liberal-arts-education
25. ERIC – EJ1090127 – A Brief History of General Education, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 2016, accessed August 12, 2025, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1090127
26. Core of the Matter – AHA, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.historians.org/perspectives-article/core-of-the-matter-the-complex-roles-of-history-courses-in-general-education-january-2021/
27. General Education Transformed, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.uwyo.edu/acadaffairs/plans/_files/aacu-2015-gen-ed-transformed-excerpt.pdf
28. General Education Reform: Unseen Opportunities – Academic Impressions, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.academicimpressions.com/PDF/GeneralEducationReform.pdf
29. College ratings ignites debate over core requirements, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.goacta.org/news-item/college_ratings_ignites_debate_over_core_requirements/
30. Handy Handout #384: What is the Meaning of a Core Curriculum vs. Common Core?, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.handyhandouts.com/viewHandout.aspx?hh_number=384
31. Why We Created Common Core – The Hunt Institute, accessed August 12, 2025, https://hunt-institute.org/resources/2014/06/why-we-created-common-core/
32. The Trouble with the Common Core – Rethinking Schools, accessed August 12, 2025, https://rethinkingschools.org/articles/editorial-the-trouble-with-the-common-core/
33. The Problems with the Common Core – Rethinking Schools, accessed August 12, 2025, https://rethinkingschools.org/articles/the-problems-with-the-common-core/
34. Teachers Feel Worried, Frustrated About Common Core – Gallup News, accessed August 12, 2025, https://news.gallup.com/poll/179048/teachers-feel-worried-frustrated-common-core.aspx
35. Common Core: Why It’s the Worst -AND BEST- Thing for Education – StudySkills.com, accessed August 12, 2025, https://studyskills.com/newspress/common-core-why-it-is-the-worst-and-best-thing-to-happen-to-education/
36. Why Adjusting to New Curricula Can Be Hard for Teachers (And Why It’s Worth It), accessed August 12, 2025, https://leadingeducators.org/blog/new-curricula-can-be-hard-for-teachers-and-why-its-worth-it/
37. Why do you despise the common core state standards? : r/mathteachers – Reddit, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/mathteachers/comments/1amobxz/why_do_you_despise_the_common_core_state_standards/
38. Here’s what annoyed high school students most about the switch to Common Core, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.chalkbeat.org/2018/5/14/21104960/here-s-what-annoyed-high-school-students-most-about-the-switch-to-common-core/
39. Architecture as a metaphor for education – ProQuest, accessed August 12, 2025, https://search.proquest.com/openview/e2007b0132515ab18569657e52b1dd94/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=48133
40. The Architectural Metaphor – RTF – Rethinking The Future, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/narratives/a8159-the-architectural-metaphor/
41. METAPHOR, MEANING, AND MAGIC | School of Architecture, accessed August 12, 2025, https://soa.utexas.edu/metaphor-meaning-and-magic
42. Metaphors as Discourse Interaction Devices in Architectural Design – MDPI, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/9/2/52
43. How Knowledge Helps – American Federation of Teachers, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.aft.org/ae/spring2006/willingham
44. Building Background Knowledge | Reading Rockets, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.readingrockets.org/reading-101/background-knowledge
45. Epistemological Metaphors, accessed August 12, 2025, http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/epistemological.html
46. What are the benefits of interdisciplinary study? – The Open University, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.open.edu/openlearn/education-development/what-are-the-benefits-interdisciplinary-study
47. Traditional-Based Learning vs. Project-Based and Collaborative Learning – Pluris Academy, accessed August 12, 2025, https://plurisacademy.com/blog/traditional-based-learning-vs-project-based-and-collaborative-learning
48. Why Teach with an Interdisciplinary Approach? – SERC (Carleton), accessed August 12, 2025, https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/interdisciplinary/why.html
49. Analogy, higher order thinking, and education – PubMed, accessed August 12, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26263071/
50. Analogy, higher order thinking, and education – The University of Chicago Learning Lab, accessed August 12, 2025, https://learninglab.uchicago.edu/Publications_files/Richland_Simms_2015%20%282%29.pdf
51. 1.1: The Interconnectedness of Science – Biology LibreTexts, accessed August 12, 2025, https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Cell_and_Molecular_Biology/Book%3A_Biofundamentals_(Klymkowsky_and_Cooper)/01%3A_Understanding_science_and_thinking_scientifically/1.1%3A_The_Interconnectedness_of_Science
52. The Danger of a Liberal Arts Education | AAUP, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.aaup.org/academe/issues/103-4/danger-liberal-arts-education
53. Put the Humanities back into Humanity | by Brielle Jobe – Medium, accessed August 12, 2025, https://medium.com/@brielle1304/put-the-humanities-back-into-humanity-d7d946e1a868
54. Liberal Arts Graduate Student Testimonials, accessed August 12, 2025, https://liberalarts.online/liberal-arts-graduate-student-testimonials/
55. A study of the impact of project-based learning on student learning effects: a meta-analysis study – PMC, accessed August 12, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10411581/
56. “Doing a Project” vs. Project Based Learning | PBLWorks, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.pblworks.org/doing-project-vs-project-based-learning
57. Project Based Learning vs. Traditional Learning Methods: What are the differences and similarities? | Education & Professional Development Nonprofit | Educators of America, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.educatorsusa.org/project-based-learning-vs-traditional-learning-methods-what-are-the-differences-and-similarities/
58. 10 Reasons Project Based Learning is Better Than Traditional Classroom Learning, accessed August 12, 2025, https://skillsamurai.com.au/articles-3/10-reasons-project-based-learning-is-better-than-traditional-classroom-learning
59. The Evidence is Clear: Rigorous Project-Based Learning is an Effective Lever for Student Success – Lucas Education Research, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.lucasedresearch.org/docs/the-evidence-is-clear-rigorous-project-based-learning-is-an-effective-lever-for-student-success/
60. Why Do We Focus on Project Based Learning? – PBL Works, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.pblworks.org/why-project-based-learning
61. Benefits of an Interdisciplinary Studies Degree, accessed August 12, 2025, https://mwcc.edu/blog/what-is-an-interdisciplinary-studies-degree/
62. Interdisciplinary Studies vs. Traditional Degrees: What Is the Difference? – Keiser University, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.keiseruniversity.edu/interdisciplinary-vs-traditional-degrees/
63. Success Stories – English & Interdisciplinary Studies – Western Connecticut State University, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.wcsu.edu/english-interdisciplinary/success-stories/
64. 8 Benefits to Earning Your Interdisciplinary Studies Degree | University of Cincinnati, accessed August 12, 2025, https://online.uc.edu/blog/interdisciplinary-studies-degree-benefits/
65. What can you do with an interdisciplinary studies degree? | ODUGlobal – ODU Online, accessed August 12, 2025, https://online.odu.edu/resources/what-can-you-do-interdisciplinary-studies-degree
66. Charting Your Own Course: Exploring Open Curriculum Universities and Colleges – Crimson Education, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.crimsoneducation.org/us/blog/a-guide-to-open-curriculum/
67. Competency-based learning – Wikipedia, accessed August 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competency-based_learning
68. What is Competency-Based Education? – American Association of Colleges of Nursing, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.aacnnursing.org/essentials/tool-kit/competency-based-education
69. Competency-Based Education – Aurora Institute, accessed August 12, 2025, https://aurora-institute.org/our-work/competencyworks/competency-based-education/
70. The Complete Guide to Competency-Based Education – D2L, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.d2l.com/blog/the-complete-guide-to-competency-based-education/
71. Competency-Based Education Guide: Benefits & Differences To Traditional Education for 2025 | Research.com, accessed August 12, 2025, https://research.com/education/competency-based-education
72. Competency Based Education: What is it, And How Your School Can Use it – Prodigy, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.prodigygame.com/main-en/blog/competency-based-education
73. www.thoughtco.com, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-core-academic-classes-1857192#:~:text=High%20school%20core%20subjects%20include,vary%20across%20institutions%20and%20majors.
74. Does college get better after finishing general education requirements? – Reddit, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/college/comments/1bdzn41/does_college_get_better_after_finishing_general/
75. Why Liberal Arts Education Is the Right Fit For Me – Carleton College, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.carleton.edu/admissions/blog/why-liberal-arts-education-is-the-right-fit-for-me/