[seabass-labrax]

As I see it, this is a qualification entirely unrelated to the type of academic education being pursued. Even if this case is, subjectively, relatively minor, such arbitrary requirements serve only to exclude otherwise capable students.

Furthermore, where is the line between disability, principle and preference? Do religious reasons count? What about cultural ones? A friend of mine who was a Navy officer told me that the Nepalese he trained were absolutely terrified of water - the rivers were so cold in Nepal that they had a deep-rooted cultural association of water with danger. They needed to persevere because they had enlisted as frogmen, but why should a student of astrophysics do so?

The opportunity to justify one's reasons doesn't absolve the issue entirely either, as that effectively makes skills of persuasion, rather than swimming, the requirement. Finally, if you allow arbitrary requirements, which ones are reasonable? Swimming might be as unreasonable to someone brought up in a desert as mountain hiking might be to someone born and bred in Massachusetts.

[mensetmanusman]

It’s a fun requirement. Life isn’t fair. Wrapping your mind around the second to enjoy the first is a life skill.

[ghaff]

They don't want to do it. But it's a life skill for safety and other reasons. So it seems reasonable for a university to at least push them in that direction. No one's forcing them to become an expert swimmer but I have zero problem with making at least a token push in that direction. (And mountain hikes are fine too--Dartmouth has freshman trips for example.)

I have zero issue with forcing prospective astrophysics students outside of their comfort zone.

ADDED: There are also phys ed requirements and humanities distribution requirements. If these are such issues, I have no doubt there are plenty of other schools that don't impose them.