In many people's eyes, compared with the "specialized" courses, the "general" courses are considered as "icing on the cake". Yes, of course, it is good, no, it is not too bad. In this regard, Dr. Liang's speech at the Chinese University of Hong Kong gave me a deep feeling. She said: "General education is not an aid, not an aid such as" engineers learn management and doctors learn ethics. " General education "has its own standards and is independent." The general education course of the Chinese University of Hong Kong aims at "establishing a common knowledge and cultural foundation for students and cultivating their sensitivity to human care" and other "grand narratives"; Of course, it also includes specific requirements such as "establishing students' learning foundation and cultivating students' attitudes and skills necessary for active learning". Obviously, there are some gaps in our understanding.
So what is "communication" and what should be "communication"? This involves the top-level design at the school level, such as our large-scale training, the reform of the faculty system and so on. Take the Chinese University of Hong Kong as an example. Their general education courses include two types: college general education and university general education. General education in universities is divided into four parts: chinese heritage, natural science and technology, society and culture, self and humanities, with complete contents and different characteristics (for example, the setting of chinese heritage curriculum is related to enhancing Hong Kong's recognition of Chinese civilization).
Then we should ask, what is the content and depth of "general education"? What kind of knowledge base is needed? Do students need to "preview" any classes? These are actually some "exquisite" problems that we need to think about in order to build a "world-class university". In my opinion, "general education" does not need "preview", and the guiding process from the shallow to the deep should be realized by the general education curriculum itself. In terms of content and depth, it is emphasized to avoid "shallow and broad" and meet the depth requirements of general "general" courses-this may be the most problematic link in general courses.
Secondly, do we need "common sense about common sense"? In this "postmodernism" in which knowledge is more and more localized and experience and expression are more and more personalized, we need some common experiences and a common foundation more and more-today, we need "sympathy" and "consensus" more than ever before. As far as "general education" is concerned, I think the school can consider offering a "basic course of general education", just like the basic course of college English. These basic courses not only help to "build a common intellectual and cultural foundation for students", but also play an important role: the experience of taking public basic courses itself will become one of the common experiences of students.
Finally, specifically, what kind of abilities should general education guide participants (I prefer to call them "participants" rather than "students") to cultivate? I think the focus should be on critical thinking, clear and effective (oral) expression, in-depth reading, communication and cooperation.
At present, the core curriculum structure of general education in our school is reasonable and effective, and it is at a critical moment of "leap-forward development". These words can be used for reference.