At Concordia College, part of the core curriculum is taking a “capstone” course. This course is supposed to “cap-off” our liberal arts learning experience and further instill the idea of BREWing (becoming responsibly engaged in the world) in our lives.
Neurochemistry was my capstone course.
I took the class largely because I was required to for my major. Even had it not been required I would have still taken the course due to it being one of the few science-based capstone courses. My reasoning for taking the course would have been solely due to the fact that I could easily understand the material since I am a Biochemistry major.
I would have never guessed how much I would learn and how important this class would be to my liberal arts experience.
Neurochemistry was unlike any course I have ever taken in college. While I did learn new and interesting scientific material like I have in other classes, what I really took away from the class was the ability to think critically about scientific literature and apply problem solving skills to real life issues.
As we read articles about neurological diseases, we always tried to keep in mind bigger, societal issues with these diseases and how our newfound knowledge may help problem solve. Key to the class was our class discussions that occurred every Friday. These discussions helped to solidify the material in the article but also to brainstorm ideas with classmates about how neurological diseases affect society and how science can contribute. Usually, I am not a fan of discussion-based classes (heresy at a liberal arts school), but I found these discussions actually worth my time and I looked forward to hearing what classmates had to say about the material.
One of the most valuable portions of the class was the type of tests we took. The tests were less about regurgitating material and more about thinking critically. We could not just memorize and repeat information but had to read clues about an article and hypothesize what was happening in a disease. This portion helped me to really piece together portions of information and come up with a coherent argument about what I thought was happening. The second portion of the test was to read the actual article and evaluate our own hypothesis.
I had never heard of a test like this before neurochemistry. It was a nice change of pace that was actually more applicable to real life. In real life, you don’t get “tested” on whether or not you have memorized formulas or definitions or whether or not you have names and dates correct. Your “test” comes in thinking critically and problem solving. Your “test” is when you are given a little information and required to come up with solution on the spot or shortly thereafter.
The material I learned in neurochemistry may or may not come up later on in my life (as a future physician it will likely come up), but what I gained from the class was not new facts, but deeper thinking. I gained the ability to think critically about scientific literature and apply new knowledge to important problems and to think about how the larger society might be affected by what I study. That, I believe, is an important “cap” to my liberal arts experience here at Concordia College.
Capping it off!
