Many students at the University of Colorado Boulder see general education requirements as just another box check to graduate. (Jade Lang/CU Independent)
Alexia: Hi! I’m Alexia Bailey, a sophomore here at CU Boulder. While I may just be in my second year, I’m here to share everything I’ve picked up so far, which is a surprising amount of information. “What’s Eating at Alexia” is my unofficial and unfiltered guide to some of the things that being a CU Boulder Buff brings. Think of it as your guide to navigating everything that makes CU Boulder, well, CU Boulder. Whether you’re a freshman finding your footing or a senior with “no body, no crime” level grievances about finals week, I’m here to share my takes, tips and honest observations on everything from the sometimes-unpredictable Buff Bus system to navigating campus protests (or dodging them entirely). College is a wild, unforgettable ride, and “What’s eating at Alexia” is here to make sense of some of it, one opinion at a time.
As the 2025-26 school year wraps up in some sort of catastrophe that diminishes GPAs university-wide, I find myself scared to open my degree audit. Dearest readers, what has started as a quick check-in on my progress has quickly turned into a reminder of just how many boxes I still have left to check.
You see, when I declared my secondary major in political science, I was surprised to find that I needed not one, not two, but three extra science classes. Whether it be biology, chemistry or some sort of philosophy course that somehow covered the credit, the University of Colorado Boulder didn’t care, so long as I completed 12 credits of “natural sciences.” Although I remain unsure of the purpose of this general education requirement other than CU Boulder’s unrelenting mission to give me a “well-rounded education,” the experience has raised a larger question for me: are general education requirements still serving their intended purpose, or have they become an outdated burden on modern students?
General education requirements started during World War One, as “125,000 men on 500 campuses underwent military training while taking a War Issues course,” according to Inside General Education. This War Issues course was designed to give a quick introduction to economics, government, history, literature and philosophy, and served as the foundation for what would be later known as general education. Now, general education has turned into requiring a political science major to engage with the natural sciences, which is fantastic in theory. I’m feeling well-rounded already. Right? But in actuality, these requirements often function less as meaningful intellectual exploration and more as a bureaucratic checklist. Students are not necessarily engaging deeply with new fields; they are simply completing credits as efficiently as possible and often using an AI friend like ChatGPT to do so.
Today’s students face rising tuition costs, increasing pressure to graduate on time (or early) and a shrinking labor market that prioritizes specialized skills. In this context, being required to take courses outside one’s field can feel less like an opportunity and more like a financial and temporal burden. For many, each class represents hundreds or even thousands of dollars, as well as time that could be spent gaining relevant experience through internships, research or advanced coursework.
Moreover, the assumption that general education requirements inherently produce “well-rounded” students is worth questioning. In my opinion, true intellectual breadth comes from genuine engagement. A student rushing through an introductory atmosphere and weather course to fulfill a requirement is unlikely to retain much knowledge, let alone develop a lasting appreciation for the discipline. Hell, it might even produce opposing results. In this way, the current system may actually undermine the very curiosity it claims to promote.
For as long as I can remember, the public school system has pushed Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) courses onto young humanities students, as STEM has higher starting salaries and directly marketable technical skills. That emphasis continues in higher education, where even humanities majors at the University of Colorado Boulder are required to complete multiple science courses to graduate. While interdisciplinary exposure has clear value, mandating it through rigid requirements raises an important question: are universities fostering genuine learning or simply enforcing a one-size-fits-all model of education to make money? After all, it is difficult to ignore the financial structure behind these requirements. More required credits can mean more tuition, and more tuition means more revenue. That does not make universities villains, but it does highlight a misalignment between institutional incentives and student needs.
I feel like if general education requirements are to remain a central part of the college experience, they should be reimagined to prioritize flexibility, relevance and genuine intellectual engagement, not just completion. I want to learn psychology because I have a true, genuine love for how Sigmund Freud pops up in every facet of the field, not just because it’s required for me to graduate.
This goes for STEM students who have a disdain for the humanities as well. Maybe they don’t want to take an introduction to journalism class, if only to fulfill a degree requirement (even though they totally should anyway). Ultimately, though, general education requirements should inspire curiosity and give students the freedom to explore disciplines they might never have considered, while respecting the value of the fields they are already passionate about. Forcing students into a one-size-fits-all model risks turning learning into a chore, rather than the transformative experience it is meant to be.
Meanwhile, as I stare at my degree audit, I don’t want to see a list of boxes checked off. I want to see evidence of curiosity pursued and until general education requirements are designed with that goal in mind, they risk remaining outdated relics rather than the foundation of a well-rounded education they claim to be.
Contact CU Independent Opinion Editor Alexia Bailey at alexia.bailey@colorado.edu
