As one of its selling points on tours to prospective students, Washington University espouses how easy it is for undergraduates to take classes across schools and even earn dual degrees if so inclined. What Wash. U. neglects to tell those students is that, if they are in the College of Arts & Sciences, earning that second degree or major will consume any time you may have had for electives.

In the College of Arts & Sciences, unlike the other undergraduate divisions, taking classes outside of ArtSci does not count toward distribution requirements. That is to say, if a student takes three engineering courses, he or she must still complete nine credits worth of natural sciences or mathematics in ArtSci. Through this policy, the ArtSci administration is effectively saying their curriculum is at a higher standard than the other schools.

None of the other undergraduate divisions have this stipulation, and all actually require students to take ArtSci classes. The double standard that ArtSci is upholding is concerning in that it limits the classes that students can take by substituting a requirement that has effectively been filled in place of another class the student may find more appealing. To give a further example, say a student wants to take a class in the art school but forgoes the opportunity and takes a different class in ArtSci just to fulfill a humanities credit. The provision that ArtSci distributions must be completed in Arts & Sciences is entirely counterproductive.

Dean Jen Smith of the College of Arts & Sciences told Student Life that conversations are being held about a list of approved classes in other schools that would be counted for distribution requirements. Because of faculty’s specific backgrounds and training, Smith said, she feels that some classes in other schools could be encompassed under the scope of Arts & Sciences. While that may be true, it is not the faculty that makes a course a certain discipline, but rather the course itself.

Also, these conversations are not being had on an administration-wide level, but rather on an individual faculty basis. Thus, these conversations will only generate meaningful change if any consensus for change did come of these conversations and were passed by a committee; the change would still have to be approved by the Arts & Sciences faculty.

Ultimately, the College of Arts & Sciences is putting the interests of its faculty ahead of the interests of its students. An economics course in the business school does not become more or less mathematical depending on who is teaching it. To prevent students from fully exploring the options available to them with restrictive distribution requirements is counterintuitive to an institution of higher learning. Wash. U. is for the promotion of education, not more red tape.