This program offers much flexibility but I don't understand why the requirement to take one of 2 sequences of 3 courses. The subject matter doesn't necessarily appeal to most students and is a distraction from what they really want to study, which might be just as enlightening and broad-based and rigorous. So, it would seem to make sense to allow students to propose some substitute - perhaps require one intro course for all, and for the other 2, offer more choices. E.g., someone might be entirely uninterested either in Marxism (which is Part 2, Sequence 2) or in Ancient and medieval studies (which is Part 1, Sequence 1). Has anyone here actually taken the 3 intro courses? Opinions? Thanks. Tesse3
Opposing views make the world go round. I think the fully mapped out first year of liberal arts at Excelsior is a very attractive concept. It's an an old-fashioned great books program, in either a humanities stream or a social sciences/sciences stream, with a dash of multiculturalism thrown in for flavor. It's sequential, and perhaps even builds a bit of student camaraderie if you check in once a week during the "open house" chat line. Then you devote year number two to your own individualized work. Sounds good to me. Plenty of other MLS programs allow you to pick and choose more widely, or design your own curricululm altogether. By contrast, Thomas Edison's MAPS degree (same as the MLS, but different monicker) requires everyone to take *two* years of great books distance-learning togetherness. Both of Excelsior's first-year streams, in other words, are required at TESC, and it takes two years before you get to your own work. That's impressive, but protracted. Peter
