Why do colleges In the U.S. require...

[Starwulf]

Fine art credits for virtually all degrees? A buddy of mine is about to go to college for a computer science/engineering degree(major/minor), and he apparently HAS to take a fine arts or language class even though it has absolutely NOTHING to do with his degree. My wife had to do the same when she went for medical coding, and I"ll be honest, I find the concept entirely stupid.

And it's not just colleges, it's highschools too. I nearly didn't graduate highschool because of my "Fine arts" credit, I had a 69 in Musical Theatre, but I was able to convince my teacher to give me a make-up assignment in order to boost it over 70 so I could graduate. Seriously, how flipping dumb would that have been, that I didn't graduate highschool because I didn't pass a class that has benefited me absolutely zero since I graduated highschool 16 years ago? What does it benefit college students? All it is a detriment, and possible a huge one if you don't pay enough attention and nearly lose out on your degree because of it. It's just a way to line colleges pockets.

So, as you can tell, this is a major pet peeve of mine, and always has been, and I figured, let's see what a forum full of people who have likely gone to college think is the reason. And I don't want no BS reasoning of "OH, everyone should have some sort of culture injected", because that's crap. I can get my culture from reading books, and visiting museums, I(and others) should not be forced to waste our money on crap like that. I want a serious, logical reason as to why this is forced on us.

I'd also like to hear if this BS is a requirement in other countries in both your primary education centers and your tertiary education places.

[Siosilvar]

The same reason art majors have to take a math class and two science classes. Gen ed classes are not so much about the content, they're about teaching you how to think, and how to have multiple thought processes to come at things from different angles.

[Starwulf]

The same reason art majors have to take a math class and two science classes. Gen ed classes are not so much about the content, they're about teaching you how to think, and how to have multiple thought processes to come at things from different angles.

I can possibly accept that in highschool, but in college? If you don't already know how to examine problems from multiple angles you shouldn't be in college in the first place.

I mean, critical thinking and problem solving is taught as early as 3rd grade nowadays, and even when I was in school, we started doing that kind of stuff by 5th grade. There is zero reason to be "taught" how to "think" and approach problems from different sides in college by forcing you to take unnecessary classes. Honestly, I don't even think it should be forced to in High School. I'm firmly of the belief that this is one of(not the primary/biggest, but one of the bigger) reasons why we are 14th in the world for Education, 25th in literacy, 15th in college education graduates, and even though I can't find an up-to-date ranking for Math, it appears we are 19th in that(this is among Industralized Nations). That's pretty piss-poor if you ask me, and this particular topic is one of the reasons imo.

[Castaras]

Well, here in the UK our universities don't do major/minor degrees. When you do your degree, you only get modules relating to that degree.

So, I'm doing computer science which means I do computer related and maths related modules. Someone else I know does Maths with Astronomy, so does maths modules and 1 or 2 physics modules per semester.

I kinda envy you guys in the US for your major/minor style degrees. I'd have much rather done that, and think it would have been better for me. As it is, I had to spend 3 years switching between courses for mental reasons because I had difficulty working out what degree area I should have been doing - in the US, I could have taken modules and they'd still have counted before I decided on my major. Also, I'd have loved to do some art/drawing classes as part of my computer science degree. :smallsmile:

[Brother Oni]

The differences between the UK and US degree programs make itself apparent later on - when I read biochemistry, we were provided supplementary reading from a final year US biochemistry major as it was approximately equivalent to our second year material, thus we educate better specialists, while yours are better generalists.

There are merits and flaws to both systems and obviously people with a preference towards either generalism or specialism will gravitate towards the system they prefer.

[Killer Angel]

And I don't want no BS reasoning of "OH, everyone should have some sort of culture injected", because that's crap.

Well, the reasoning is fine. School should be able to give you general culture... only, in this case, they do it wrong.

[thorgrim29]

I think it's because US college education is all in the liberal arts model, where the idea is to get an education and not to learn a trade. Of course the need for that kind of thing has diminished now that post-secondary is aimed at people of all social classes and not just the gentleman class like it was when it sprung up in england so the importance of the general education classes has diminished for most people. So it went from a broadening of the sensibilities necessary to fit in with your social class to an annoyance resolved by taking incredibly easy and vague classes like music appreciation and relaxation.

I do think it's important for people to have some grounding in philosophy and literature (as well as how to write sentences good), but I'm not convinced the US model is the best way to do it. In theory I think the way we do it here (2 years of about 50/50 general education and college preparation classes between high school and university) is better in theory but in practice almost nobody takes it seriously so the end result is probably the same.

That being said I do like the option you have of minoring in something just for fun, I would have loved the opportunity to study History on the side while in college, but I already had 15+ credits per term planned out from the day I arrived, and a weird internship schedule (paid, so not complaining too much) that would have prevented it.

[Scarlet Knight]

Consider how many college students change their minds & majors before graduation. They're only kids as freshman.

Even sticking with the same field, the variation is amazing. Take a student pharmacist who goes into Industry.

I don't know if I will be in hard research, or use my degree while in marketing, regulatory, safety information, or just climbing the corporate ladder.

[Chen]

I had to take two electives when doing my bachelors of engineering degree. They had to be outside my area of study but could be pretty much anything not engineering/science related. I don't feel 2 courses are much to ask about rounding out an education. If you want to focus specifically on one thing and one thing only, go to a trade school.

[Telonius]

Fine art credits for virtually all degrees? A buddy of mine is about to go to college for a computer science/engineering degree(major/minor), and he apparently HAS to take a fine arts or language class even though it has absolutely NOTHING to do with his degree. My wife had to do the same when she went for medical coding, and I"ll be honest, I find the concept entirely stupid.

And it's not just colleges, it's highschools too. I nearly didn't graduate highschool because of my "Fine arts" credit, I had a 69 in Musical Theatre, but I was able to convince my teacher to give me a make-up assignment in order to boost it over 70 so I could graduate. Seriously, how flipping dumb would that have been, that I didn't graduate highschool because I didn't pass a class that has benefited me absolutely zero since I graduated highschool 16 years ago? What does it benefit college students? All it is a detriment, and possible a huge one if you don't pay enough attention and nearly lose out on your degree because of it. It's just a way to line colleges pockets.

So, as you can tell, this is a major pet peeve of mine, and always has been, and I figured, let's see what a forum full of people who have likely gone to college think is the reason. And I don't want no BS reasoning of "OH, everyone should have some sort of culture injected", because that's crap. I can get my culture from reading books, and visiting museums, I(and others) should not be forced to waste our money on crap like that. I want a serious, logical reason as to why this is forced on us.

I'd also like to hear if this BS is a requirement in other countries in both your primary education centers and your tertiary education places.

Just from personal experience: I work at a science journal. We get papers from all kinds of scientists who are in extraordinarily specialized fields. The papers that appear on the cover are usually the ones where at least one person on the research team has some Fine Arts background. Being able to compose an image is a real and important skill. It is not something everyone can do; some of the "suggested cover art" authors submit is completely atrocious.

[aspi]

The short answer? Because it builds character.

The longer answer? (from a general point of view)
In addition to giving you a broad education (which, in my opinion, is actually very useful), being forced to take courses that you would otherwise not take is something that forces you outside your comfort zone. It means that you to peek over the edge and see what else is out there. Additionally, you will meet people that you otherwise wouldn't. You'll encounter points of view that are different to what you're used to and (ideally) you're forced to expand your own view of the world. Granted, this isn't always how it works out, but a very narrow, very focussed education is never a good idea in my experience.

The longer answer? (from an academic point of view)
Here, I would expand on what Telonius said. As a computer scientist who has a really broad (albeit sometimes shallow) background in a lot of other fields, I find this secondary knowledge to be extremely helpful in my work. It's mostly an attitude thing. If you go to a lecture that you have to go to just because you're being forced, then you won't like it. But if you actually try to find useful bits of information, then you will come up with solutions to a problem that no one else will come up with, simply due to your unique combination of knowledge. Almost all great scientists in the past dabbled in more than one field and most great advances in science today are interdisciplinary to some degree. And as anyone who has worked on interdisciplinary projects before will tell you, actually working out a common language to talk about the research problem is much, much harder than you initially think. If all scientists had a narrow education, this would be even worse.

Incidentally, in my opinion at least, this is also why many of the first world countries are doing poor in education rankings. Because we forgot that education is a privilege, not something that we are forced to do. Knowledge is power*. Even if a particular piece of information may turn out to be useless in your life (and some of it definitely will be), there's no way of knowing which information will be useless for a particular person and which won't.


*Yes, I know, I know. Power is power. But we know how well this works out for her :smallwink:

[Rodin]

I do like the variation that U.S. colleges offer. My English requirement wound up being "Foundations of Ancient Literature", and that class literally changed my religion. All of my "Arts" electives were extremely fascinating, particularly the Sociology and Psychology classes.

However, I think they take it too far sometimes. As a Computer Science major, I wound up being forced to take high level theoretical math classes as well as slightly lower level Physics classes. I needed neither for me degree (basic Calculus is all you need for Computer Science, and even then you almost certainly won't need that). That's one case where Electives should have been a thing. And it affected me adversely - because I was so busy dealing with unneccessary requirements, there was less time to take classes that mattered. I missed out on a SQL course because I only had enough time to take two Comp Sci classes that semester and I chose poorly. Today, the office I work in basically runs off SQL. Would have been really useful to have learned that in college instead of having to pick up a textbook and learn the stuff myself.

[aspi]

As a Computer Science major, I wound up being forced to take high level theoretical math classes as well as slightly lower level Physics classes. I needed neither for me degree (basic Calculus is all you need for Computer Science, and even then you almost certainly won't need that). That's one case where Electives should have been a thing.
I really don't agree with that statement. If computer science equals programming or program design to you, then you don't need much math. But if you're doing doing research in computer science, then the required level of math can be arbitrarily large up to the point where it essentially becomes math research. Especially with math courses, it's as much about the method as it is about the content so I'm pretty sure you took something from this course. This is a really frequent point of discussion at my university, where undergrads frequently argue that the math is too tough - until they reach master level courses where they wish they'd put in more effort. Usually this is indicative of a lack in focus in the design of the course and how different lectures fit together. So there's something to be said for not sacrificing depth for breadth as well I suppose.

However,if you university requires a level of math that's not necessary for the degree or any other required courses as you describe, then that's obviously a major oversight.

[Anarion]

I would add that university, at least in the U.S., is not seen as vocational training. Your major does prepare you for a specialty in a field, but the idea of a university education is to make an all-around person. Everyone that comes out of university should have some understanding of society, politics, and culture, which requires some kind of history, literature, or other arts. Conversely, every liberal arts major needs to at least know the basics of the science and math that underlie the modern world. It makes everyone better off if we're not all selectively ignorant.

[Winter_Wolf]

"Well rounded individuals and exposure to 'culture' are mandatory." Plus college in the US nowadays really is just an extension of high school that costs money. You're expected to go, even though a BA/BS are really just "BS" in the cowpucky sense of the term in a lot of ways. The most financially (and arguably life in general) successful people I know never graduated from college, even if they went for maybe a term or two. If high schools were actually doing their job properly colleges might not have to pick up the slack.

But all that aside, I've read papers and proposals written by professionals in technical fields. Some of the most godawful terrible writing ever. If anything I'd argue a solid writing/Enlish 101 "get it through your skull basic grammar and enjoyable/non-torture writing prowess will get you better grants/more money coming in for you projects" should be enforced. I've read history books by "experts" who clearly hated having to share their work with the world because it was some of the most dry, esoteric crap I'd ever been forced to read—and after while you did learn how to accurately judge if something was worth properly reading or even worth skimming. Seriously, you can be the absolute master genius of your field but if the people holding the purse strings don't like how you say it or simply can't understand what you're trying to do, you're getting no money from them. Possibly no job if they keep asking "what the heck is this person actually doing/trying to do here? Anyone have a clue? No? Time to 'downsize'."

[Flickerdart]

There are any number of dorks with glasses and CS degrees out there. Getting a good job is all about differentiating yourself, and correctly picking your Gen Eds is not a bad way to do it.

[SilentNight]

On the subject of foreign language requirements, I'm very sad that my university's college for behavioral sciences is doing away with theirs (natural sciences and engineers already don't have one). It's somewhat a holdover from the liberal arts education model and seen as somewhat useless given how the whole world seems to speak English now (as this wonderful forum demonstrates), but I still feel like it's vitally important. Are you going to become fluent in a language from two semesters of introductory classes? Of course not, but then you have the option to continue and set yourself apart from others in your field. Study abroad, work internationally, show basic courtesy for people who have taken the time to learn our garbled mess of a language. Learning a second language also helps prevent Alzheimer's.

In general as well, as to the basic injection of culture it's supposed to provide you with, while you might read and go to museums, not everyone will, and college offers access to subjects non-students have a hard time finding. After you graduate you may never be in that sort of environment again, so I feel that it's important to get some foreign language/cultural awareness as long as you're paying for a degree in a different field and are in the environment anyway. My two cents.

[Grinner]

The most financially (and arguably life in general) successful people I know never graduated from college, even if they went for maybe a term or two. If high schools were actually doing their job properly colleges might not have to pick up the slack.

The single most important trait for success is resolve. Everything beyond that is just icing on the cake.


If anything I'd argue a solid writing/Enlish 101 "get it through your skull basic grammar and enjoyable/non-torture writing prowess will get you better grants/more money coming in for you projects" should be enforced.

They do in some schools.


I've read history books by "experts" who clearly hated having to share their work with the world because it was some of the most dry, esoteric crap I'd ever been forced to read—and after while you did learn how to accurately judge if something was worth properly reading or even worth skimming.

I'd argue that you should hate the game, not the player. From what I gather, scientific research doesn't exactly encourage flowery language that lilts upon the ears like a cool summer breeze.

[Starwulf]

But all that aside, I've read papers and proposals written by professionals in technical fields. Some of the most godawful terrible writing ever. If anything I'd argue a solid writing/Enlish 101 "get it through your skull basic grammar and enjoyable/non-torture writing prowess will get you better grants/more money coming in for you projects" should be enforced.

I don't think English 101 is exactly a fine arts credit, at least not in the sense I'm referring to. For my friend he was having to debate between an art class(he's going to a local college), something to do with music, or a language class(He's decided to go with the language class). While I agree it's nice that people know how to properly compose a sentence, I again point to elementary-middle school. If you didn't learn how to do those things at that point in time, I'm not really sure you're college material, as that is literally the most basic of basic stuff.

A lot of responses, and a lot of recurring themes, one in particular I want to address: Yes, college is a privilege, but it's one that we PAY for. WE, not the colleges. Depending on how many "Unnecessary" classes you are forced to take in order to get your degree, you can end up spending an extra 5-10k, which is way to damn much for something that will honestly not doing anyone any good(I've seen some people try to argue this, but I'll wholeheartedly disagree that being forced to take music appreciation, or an art class is going to enhance your ability to do your job in any meaningful way). That's what I take issue with. If I were to go to college, it would be to learn something specific so I can do a specific job. I wouldn't want to have to spend more of my money just because the colleges think "Everyone should be exposed to some level of culture". I don't believe that's their right to make us do that. If college was free? Yeah, I could see it, but it's not. College is EXPENSIVE, and additional fluff classes just makes it more so.

[dancrilis]

As a non-usaer (or whatever the nationality is called) or american in general (north of south) just wanted to answer a specific question.


I'd also like to hear if this BS is a requirement in other countries in both your primary education centers and your tertiary education places.
Yes.

For example studying a technical subject I had to do a language to pass.
Why? Because the course wanted to increase its academic standing and doing so required that a european language was done/had been done to a relevant level.

A friend doing a technical subject had to effective do 70% of a different friend's (doing a non-technical subject) course to pass.
Why? Who knows.

So yes this stuff happens outside of the americas.

However (and what I understand is the difference from America) University is far cheaper outside of the US.
For example:
MIT (reportedly one of the best Universities in the World): http://web.mit.edu/catalog/overv.chap4-costs.html
Imperial College London (reportedly one of the best Universities in the World): http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/studentfinance/2015-16tuitionfees#UG

Those are basically the best of the best and it would be cheaper for a united states citizen to travel to london for their education than to stay in the americas (and far cheaper for a european citizen).

Ultimately the problem with teaching nonsense subjects is that they are aimed at people that are not actually capable of the hard course and they so they keep the pass rate up - sure you can't program worth a damn but you know that in 787 Empress Irene restored the veneration of icons and that is something, and an incautious employer looking for a night shift worker might think that your computer science degree means you know about computers which will allow you time to learn on the job.

[Icewraith]

Fine art credits for virtually all degrees? A buddy of mine is about to go to college for a computer science/engineering degree(major/minor), and he apparently HAS to take a fine arts or language class even though it has absolutely NOTHING to do with his degree. My wife had to do the same when she went for medical coding, and I"ll be honest, I find the concept entirely stupid.

And it's not just colleges, it's highschools too. I nearly didn't graduate highschool because of my "Fine arts" credit, I had a 69 in Musical Theatre, but I was able to convince my teacher to give me a make-up assignment in order to boost it over 70 so I could graduate. Seriously, how flipping dumb would that have been, that I didn't graduate highschool because I didn't pass a class that has benefited me absolutely zero since I graduated highschool 16 years ago? What does it benefit college students? All it is a detriment, and possible a huge one if you don't pay enough attention and nearly lose out on your degree because of it. It's just a way to line colleges pockets.

So, as you can tell, this is a major pet peeve of mine, and always has been, and I figured, let's see what a forum full of people who have likely gone to college think is the reason. And I don't want no BS reasoning of "OH, everyone should have some sort of culture injected", because that's crap. I can get my culture from reading books, and visiting museums, I(and others) should not be forced to waste our money on crap like that. I want a serious, logical reason as to why this is forced on us.

I'd also like to hear if this BS is a requirement in other countries in both your primary education centers and your tertiary education places.

High school fine arts classes can't really grade students on their innate artistic/acting/singing talent, so instead the grade becomes a measure of whether or not you showed up to class, participated, turned in assignments, paid attention to the material, put in at least a little bit of effort, and didn't tick off your instructor.

Part of graduating form high school is performing all of those tasks consistently enough to not get a "D".

[Scarlet Knight]

If I were to go to college, it would be to learn something specific so I can do a specific job. I wouldn't want to have to spend more of my money just because the colleges think "Everyone should be exposed to some level of culture". I don't believe that's their right to make us do that. If college was free? Yeah, I could see it, but it's not. College is EXPENSIVE, and additional fluff classes just makes it more so.

You may have hit upon a marketing idea: a "fluff-less" college. It could work similar to an apprenticeship.

Presently, you do not go to college to learn how to do a job. That's what your employer will teach you.

You go to college to convince an employer that you're smart enough to learn what they will teach, and they expect you to have gained a college level education, which includes: fluff.

And, yeah, it makes the college money, so there's that benefit, too.

[Peelee]

As a non-usaer (or whatever the nationality is called)

Denizens of the U.S. are Americans. Yes, it's technically the name of two continents, but "United States-er" is a mouthful and all the other countries have easy names to denote nationality (eg. Columbian, Canadian, Cuban... it even works with countries that doesn't start with C). If you want to refer to the countries as a group, use "the Americas." It all sounds odd at first if you're not used to it, but it works well enough.

[Brother Oni]

Those are basically the best of the best and it would be cheaper for a united states citizen to travel to london for their education than to stay in the americas (and far cheaper for a european citizen).


Not as cheap as you think, given that both would have to pay London prices for cost of living, which are one of the highest in the world.

[Douglas]

You may have hit upon a marketing idea: a "fluff-less" college. It could work similar to an apprenticeship.
Those exist and are called "trade schools", as I understand it.

[Yuki Akuma]

Denizens of the U.S. are Americans. Yes, it's technically the name of two continents, but "United States-er" is a mouthful and all the other countries have easy names to denote nationality (eg. Columbian, Canadian, Cuban... it even works with countries that doesn't start with C). If you want to refer to the countries as a group, use "the Americas." It all sounds odd at first if you're not used to it, but it works well enough.

The United States of America even has 'America' right there in the name, so it's not much of a stretch to call them Americans.

[Flickerdart]

We call citizens of the United States of Mexico Mexicans, so it's not much of a stretch to call citizens of the USA Americans.

[Peelee]

We call citizens of the United States of Mexico Mexicans, so it's not much of a stretch to call citizens of the USA Americans.

Huh. I did not know Mexico was a federation.

[Eldan]

High school fine arts classes can't really grade students on their innate artistic/acting/singing talent, so instead the grade becomes a measure of whether or not you showed up to class, participated, turned in assignments, paid attention to the material, put in at least a little bit of effort, and didn't tick off your instructor.

Part of graduating form high school is performing all of those tasks consistently enough to not get a "D".

And why is there such a giant paradigm shift from that to college? If you can be graded on actual talent in college, why not high school?


Our system over here is radically different anyway. In switzerland, nine years of school are mandatory, that's it, you're done at 15 or 16. In my class, which I think is more or less representative, about 20 % went on to general high school, about half went into some kind of apprenticeship (often with a day or two of school per week included), the rest went to some kind of specialized school, for economy, or computers or languages.

The idea of high school was to prepare kids for university, while also giving them a general education. You were expected to be to understand basic calculus, speak three languages at at least a basic level and know sufficient literature, geography, history and sciences to get your through most of the rest of your life. Whether or not the schools actually succeeded at that is a different question, of course.

Then university. Maybe half of the kids who went to high school went to university. You chose your subject, which you would then write your bachelor's degree in, three years later. We'd have about 40 hours of lectures and lab per week, some dozen hours of homework and then homework discussion with a TA. As a scientist, my subjects in the first year, which was the most general, were general biology, zoology, botany, biochemistry, organic chemistry, anorganic chemistry, mathematics and physics. Additionally, over our three years of bachelors, we'd have to take 4 credit points in humanities and social sciences, from a pretty long list. For those not using credit points: that's four hours per week for one semester, or two hours per week for two semesters. That's it. I took about twice that, because I liked it. As a biologist, I took "Environmental Laws and Regulations" (self-explanatory, probably), "The idea of "Human" over the ages" (talking about what people thought humans were and where they came from, from the Greek philosophers to about the fifties. Also so, so much racism), "The history of Pseudoscience" (probably my favourite subject ever. Everything from alchemy over mesmerism to homeopathy) and "International Science in the Cold War".


So, high school is general education. You should be done with that by the time you graduate. For the annoying nerd I was at that age, high school was already a huge step up. Finally, you're sitting in a class only with kids who want to be here and already had the best grades of their former classes. Motivated students and teachers, bigger budgets, quiet lectures, heaven.

[Grinner]

Huh. I did not know Mexico was a federation.

That makes two of us.

[Flickerdart]

Huh. I did not know Mexico was a federation.
Many countries are, and the name just isn't used in colloquial English discussion. For instance, Brazil and Russia are both Federations.

[007_ctrl_room]

They just want students to be well-rounded and get a broader perspective, really.

[noparlpf]

There is something to be said for general education. But...I think we should have that pretty much done by the time a kid finishes high school.


I kinda envy you guys in the US for your major/minor style degrees. I'd have much rather done that, and think it would have been better for me. As it is, I had to spend 3 years switching between courses for mental reasons because I had difficulty working out what degree area I should have been doing - in the US, I could have taken modules and they'd still have counted before I decided on my major. Also, I'd have loved to do some art/drawing classes as part of my computer science degree. :smallsmile:

I'd kind of like a mix of the two. Like, you have to take X, Y, and Z classes, and only those classes, to complete a degree in biology or comp sci or whatever, but you're still allowed to take other electives if you want to (or if due to scheduling conflicts you end up with only three classes one semester and need more to fill in the time, which has happened to me).

So say (I'm just making up a simplified scenario for an example) a degree in bio requires 20 bio credits, 5 maths credits, and 5 chemistry credits. And say a degree in chemistry requires 20 chemistry credits and 10 maths credits. You could start out in the chemistry program and after a year decide to switch to bio and you wouldn't really be that far behind because some of the credits overlap.

And art students wouldn't need to take two semesters of algebra or chemistry over again (because let's face it, they already took those once in high school and got by with Bs and Cs, and it's not like they're going to register for calculus voluntarily), and maths students wouldn't need to take two semesters of history (seriously, I've taken intro US history like, four times since middle school, you'd think for the same level of material it would have been enough to just do it once in high school) or intro psych or ceramics or whatever. My degree is in biochem and I had to take an intro theater lighting class once. How does that even make sense?

[Madcrafter]

There is something to be said for general education. But...I think we should have that pretty much done by the time a kid finishes high school.Maybe, but the university has to make sure right? Let in everyone for money, but only let the presentable ones out. :smalltongue:


My degree is in biochem and I had to take an intro theater lighting class once. How does that even make sense?And maybe it will help you develop a novel photo-assay or something one day. Granted, probably not, but you never know.



I have an engineering degree, and got to take all of two "arts credits". And that was about it for general education, unless you really wanted to do more. Most engineers took Psychology and a language or Econ, and found it a drag. I took micro and macro-economics, since I could double up on the credits for a minor in commerce. And doing much more than two would not be that comfortable, unless you were extending your degree a bit.

A brief look shows me that Science people at my alma mater would have to take four arts courses, which isn't terrible but I could see meaning you'd dip into something esoteric and useless just to get it over with.

[Peelee]

My degree is in biochem and I had to take an intro theater lighting class once. How does that even make sense?

Did every biochem major have to take Intro Theater Lighting, or was it a Fine Arts credit and you thought that one sounded nice and easy?


Many countries are, and the name just isn't used in colloquial English discussion. For instance, Brazil and Russia are both Federations.

See, I knew about the Russian Federation, the UAE, and the US, but that was about it. This is a pretty cool revelation.

[noparlpf]

Did every biochem major have to take Intro Theater Lighting, or was it a Fine Arts credit and you thought that one sounded nice and easy?

I forget what specifically it filled but it was the only thing available that semester that didn't conflict with anything else I needed.

[Wardog]

See, I knew about the Russian Federation, the UAE, and the US, but that was about it. This is a pretty cool revelation.

According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation), 27 countries are federations. And judging by the map, they looks as though they collectively make up about half the Earth's land surface.

[5a Violista]

Looking back at my undergraduate study (in a private religious American college, for reference), a Bachelor's Degree requires two parts: a major-specific part and a general education part (and an optional minor-specific part). If a course counts for more than one requirement in different parts, then you can double-count it. (For example, an English course may count for both your major and generals, a music class for both major and minor, etc.) From this alone, it makes it pretty clear that the university wants graduates to have both a specialization in a particular field and a general education.

I'm not all that into history to analyze why that is.

However, because it appears many people in this thread only have their own experiences to draw from, I'll post the requirements for each of these parts at my university: (note: Because Mechanical Engineering was a popular major, they also had pre-major requirements before applying to the major. Not all majors have this requirement.) (Also, many of these courses, I received credit for them while still in High School so I skipped several of the introductory ones.)

>One basic biology course, one basic chemistry course, and two basic physics courses (It's really easy to test out on 3/4 of these)
>Two basic Calculus courses and either 2 or 3 upper-division engineering math courses (It's really easy to test out on the 1st calculus course)
>Two Civil Engineering mechanics courses, one Electrical Engineering course, a Mechanical Engineering mechanics course, and a new student seminar course
>14 professional mechanical engineering courses
>One Leadership/Ethics course
>One English course (on technical communication)
>One Statistics course made specifically for engineers and scientists
>An additional elective 12 credit hours (~4 courses) of upper-level science/engineering/manufacturing/etc courses

Seems reasonable enough to me.


>14 credit hours of religion courses
>Either a single American History+Politics course, or a two-course combination of courses chosen from history, politics, and economics. (The history course is really easy to test out of)
>A pick of 1 (out of 3) first-year writing courses. (Really easy to test out of)
>An upper-level "Written and Oral Communication" course, out of a massive list of options (Pretty much every major has a major-specific requirement that applies here)
>A "Quantitative Reasoning" course (Extraordinarily easy to test out of; requirement is pretty much any course that involves numbers)
>A "Languages of Learning" course (Either a basic math or statistics course, or any second-year or higher foreign language course, or a music education course)
>One course of Civilization 1: options include everything from history to literature to music to philosophy to history of creativity...everything pre-Renaissance. The only way you can make this not related to your major is if you're not trying.)
>Another course of Civ 2: Same options, but post-Renaissance. Again, with the huge list of options, the only way to make it unrelated to your interests is if you're not trying. Or, alternatively, if you put if off until the last semester of senior year and you don't plan out your schedule in advance.)
>An Arts course: Includes an even larger variety of courses, including art, education, history, dance, foreign languages, cinema, music, jazz, philosophy, theatre, etc. Nearly all of these double-count with other generals courses. Pretty much the only way you can make this unrelated to your interests and major is if you're not interested in anything.
>A Letters course: Many also double-count with civilization courses. Options include many foreign language courses, international history and/or literature, rhetoric, religious literature, history, biology, education...and so on. Okay, this one I can see you taking it and it being unrelated to your major, but this is one single course and so many of them are foreign language courses that if you can't see how a foreign language might help you in your career, that's kind-of really sad.
>A Biological Sciences class: Basically, any first-year biology, environmental, chemical, nutritional, etc courses count, in addition to some dance and exercise courses.
>A Physical Sciences course: Either take a general science course (literally the easiest course ever) or take two courses out of any first-year chemistry, physics, or geology course. Upper-level Computer Science, physical engineering, IT, and construction management also count.

To me, it seems like there's no problem with these. Each section only requires one course, really, and every major fulfils at least half of these requirements already. There's so many options available for each course that it's nearly impossible to not make it related to your major or interests (or a foreign language you speak) if you plan out your schedule before signing up for classes. In addition, nearly all of them are incredibly easy to test out of, especially if you paid any attention in your classes in High School.
Near as I can tell, these requirements are basically "This is what you should know coming out of high school; if you didn't learn it there, here's your chance to get caught up. For everyone else, there's MasterCard. it's really just a test to see if you know how to plan a schedule."


A minor is simply 16 credits (approx. 5-6 courses) in any chosen field. The courses generally come from a simple and easy representation of the major requirements for that field.

That's enough to say you're acquainted with that topic. Also, entirely optional. You would be silly to do it in something that you don't like or already have an interest in.


Re:Federations:
There's only that many? Wow, here I was thinking there were more than that.

[aspi]

Re:Federations:
There's only that many? Wow, here I was thinking there were more than that.
Well, you have to leave some space for all the republics, which make up most of the remaining countries. And then there's a few Kingdoms and other monarchies. I think that countries for which the full official name is identical to the one that is used coloquially are a minority.

[noparlpf]

I don't want to type it on my phone now but I'll post my actual major/minor/gen ed requirements later.

[dmaxno]

Fine art credits for virtually all degrees? [...]
[...] let's see what a forum full of people who have likely gone to college think is the reason. And I don't want no BS reasoning of "OH, everyone should have some sort of culture injected", because that's crap. I can get my culture from reading books, and visiting museums, I(and others) should not be forced to waste our money on crap like that. I want a serious, logical reason as to why this is forced on us.
I'd also like to hear if this BS is a requirement in other countries in both your primary education centers and your tertiary education places.

I'd like to address your question by first pointing out some (arguable) pros of forcing some general requirements from a few different points of view.

Workplace needs/realities:

Consider what percentage of people will perform (approximately) the same job for more than 10 years. Many of those would be trades (electricians, hairdressers, etc), very few would be university degrees. It is arguable that a good college education needs to show you can handle unrelated tasks.
Career changes - management: Can you look around and tell me who will go into management? Or other generalist path? And can you predict how far into that path? There is no reliable method to measure this and a college should prepare you to handle a changing career
Career changes - multidisciplinary: A lot of work is multidisciplinary. General education instructs us on other disciplines, encouraging multidisciplinary options.
Career - interactions: Even if you have a team of specialists, these need to interact with outside teams/groups at some point.
Communications: I am in IT - do you have a clue how much money and effort is wasted on people not understanding each other? at some point we all have customers and (arguably) a generalist education allows us to see others' points of view which reduces waste (less "They got what they asked for, but it's not what they wanted")
Even a specialist will need to work with different people and personalities. Exposure to other areas of interest ensures you are exposed with other worldviews.
Rigidity: Pursuing a narrow path may lead to rigid thinking which has long-term negative consequences for organizations.


Purpose of college vs. trade schools:

Colleges teach (or should teach) concepts and criteria, not skills and specific tools. In any field, the technologies may be changing, but most of the concepts behind the old tool/technology remain applicable.



Cynicism ($ and convenience):

Colleges do make money on those classes. It is an oligopoly, you are a captive audience and got no way out. (Well, you do, but not from this point of view).
Marketing: It is a way for the school to announce its other programs and lure people into dual degrees.
Profitable tradition: it is a profitable tradition.
Funding required degrees: Without general requirements, some of the older departments would see rapid decline in numbers and funding. This is difficult in a country where education is not government-funded


Who needs them?:

Who cares? You argue that you could get more general education on your own free-time. Well, then spend that time getting specialized knowledge. I know many people in IT (ICT in other countries) that did not go to college. If you are such a strong specialist, then who cares if you can just leave? It is your choice to spend that money or to train yourself or to take specialized classes.
Over-load - most students may be overloaded with too much time on specialized courses. This large % benefits from a break (that is also profitable for the University). If you are not one of them, then just take overload to graduate early or (as noted above) quit college and go straight to work.



I am fully aware that there are advantages to a specialist education. There are also other pros of a generalist education and many of the points I provided are arguable. My hope is that you find some arguments that are reasonable to you and either feel better about the general classes your friend has to pay for, or advise your friend to go straight to the workforce.

In my personal case (B.S.E. in 2002) I found some of the above pros apply to me: Career-change to different specialization, career-change in a specialist field that requires a lot of communication with business and other engineers. Found useful application in my life and work to many generalist concepts I learnt. Work with multiple personalities and people of different professions. Over time my interests have become broader, not narrower. Other.

[noparlpf]

That's similar to how my uni did it. Each year I had to take 50% core modules which were pre-set and unchangeable, 25% secondary modules which were related to the degree subject and could be selected from an approved list, and 25% tertiary modules which could be anything.

And the core stuff didn't include high-school gen ed like Literature, [Country] History, or random art classes?

[noparlpf]

No, the core modules were all specifically relevant to the degree subject. The secondary modules were related but had maybe a degree or two of separation and the tertiary modules could be anything.

That sounds nice.

[Closet_Skeleton]

According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation), 27 countries are federations. And judging by the map, they looks as though they collectively make up about half the Earth's land surface.

*coughthat'smisleadingprojectioncough*

[Rodin]

And why is there such a giant paradigm shift from that to college? If you can be graded on actual talent in college, why not high school?


Our system over here is radically different anyway. In switzerland, nine years of school are mandatory, that's it, you're done at 15 or 16. In my class, which I think is more or less representative, about 20 % went on to general high school, about half went into some kind of apprenticeship (often with a day or two of school per week included), the rest went to some kind of specialized school, for economy, or computers or languages.

The idea of high school was to prepare kids for university, while also giving them a general education. You were expected to be to understand basic calculus, speak three languages at at least a basic level and know sufficient literature, geography, history and sciences to get your through most of the rest of your life. Whether or not the schools actually succeeded at that is a different question, of course.

Then university. Maybe half of the kids who went to high school went to university. You chose your subject, which you would then write your bachelor's degree in, three years later. We'd have about 40 hours of lectures and lab per week, some dozen hours of homework and then homework discussion with a TA. As a scientist, my subjects in the first year, which was the most general, were general biology, zoology, botany, biochemistry, organic chemistry, anorganic chemistry, mathematics and physics. Additionally, over our three years of bachelors, we'd have to take 4 credit points in humanities and social sciences, from a pretty long list. For those not using credit points: that's four hours per week for one semester, or two hours per week for two semesters. That's it. I took about twice that, because I liked it. As a biologist, I took "Environmental Laws and Regulations" (self-explanatory, probably), "The idea of "Human" over the ages" (talking about what people thought humans were and where they came from, from the Greek philosophers to about the fifties. Also so, so much racism), "The history of Pseudoscience" (probably my favourite subject ever. Everything from alchemy over mesmerism to homeopathy) and "International Science in the Cold War".


So, high school is general education. You should be done with that by the time you graduate. For the annoying nerd I was at that age, high school was already a huge step up. Finally, you're sitting in a class only with kids who want to be here and already had the best grades of their former classes. Motivated students and teachers, bigger budgets, quiet lectures, heaven.

Bolded part shows the real difference. In the U.S., all children are expected to complete high school, regardless of whether high school is something that would benefit them. And while there are honors programs, a lot of classes has the future fry cook at the greasy spoon in the same class with the future theoretical physicist.

The result isn't pretty. The fry cook is gaining very little benefit from having algebra drilled into him, while physicist kid would much rather have moved on to calculus already.

In theory, you're giving all children a solid foundation for the rest of your lives. In practice, it's teenage day care. I have had a teacher chastise me for getting ahead of the class. That's right - I was actually told to stop learning so much.

My first year of college (and that of many others) was basically "crap you shoulda learned already in high school, but which not enough of you already know so we gotta cover it again". I'm all for vocational and trade schools starting up at around the time high school starts. Let people who would benefit from a practical, hands on education go do that, and let those interested in higher learning go do that. Putting them all in one class benefits nobody.

[noparlpf]

In theory, you're giving all children a solid foundation for the rest of your lives. In practice, it's teenage day care. I have had a teacher chastise me for getting ahead of the class. That's right - I was actually told to stop learning so much.

This started in second grade (the second time I took it, because this school made me repeat it because I was "too young" for third grade when we moved there) when I was routinely scolded for reading ahead.

I think my favorite example has to be in tenth grade. I had just moved again so they put me in basic classes instead of honors because I was new. At the end of the year my chemistry teacher told me that she didn't like when students had more than 100% and asked me if I would mind intentionally failing the final. (She already curved the rest of the class except for me because I was getting raw 90-100% and the next highest grades were raw 60-70%.) (Conversely, my trig teacher was proud that I managed a 107% average for the year despite being three or four years younger than the rest of the class. I even had 112% one quarter.)

[Grytorm]

The result isn't pretty. The fry cook is gaining very little benefit from having algebra drilled into him, while physicist kid would much rather have moved on to calculus already.

In theory, you're giving all children a solid foundation for the rest of your lives. In practice, it's teenage day care. I have had a teacher chastise me for getting ahead of the class. That's right - I was actually told to stop learning so much.

My first year of college (and that of many others) was basically "crap you shoulda learned already in high school, but which not enough of you already know so we gotta cover it again". I'm all for vocational and trade schools starting up at around the time high school starts. Let people who would benefit from a practical, hands on education go do that, and let those interested in higher learning go do that. Putting them all in one class benefits nobody.

And the problem becomes worse when do to the lack of funding schools can't also offer higher level classes like Calculus.

High school kind of makes sense as grouping people together based on maturity level and proximity to home, but only if it caters to the various intellectual levels of all involved. I think I was pretty lucky myself with High School. Where I went despite only having 400 students we had quite a few AP options.

[valadil]

Another programmer here. Math and CS came naturally to me. I could breeze through those without studying. Liberal arts stuff not so much. I learned more about hard work and studying by trying to work on those subject that weren't freebies. Putting me in a liberal arts class forces me to work hard instead of relying on my natural talents and humbles me by putting me way behind everyone else in the class. Whether or not I remember any of the topical knowledge, I think having to work for a grade was good for me.

Check this out: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steve-jobs-death-apple-calligraphy-248900 it's about how a calligraphy class Steve Jobs took led to his appreciation of design. I'm sure not all calligraphy classes will affect people this way, but I think that's what they're going for by putting you in classes outside your focus.

Finally, I'd like to add that I've been interviewing a lot of programmers lately. I've seen a bunch that have great pedigrees but can't actually code. I also have coworkers with degrees in philosophy, music, and library science who are fine programmers. Even though those majors weren't resume builders, my coworkers got something valuable out of them.

[Jay R]

I'm frankly surprised that anyone would have a problem with the well-roundedness requirements. Those were the easy classes. I took Math, Math Science, Physics and Computer classes for my major, but I also took upper level classes in Economics, English, Russian, Classics, Philosophy, and Psychology. As a graduate student, when that was not expected, I audited courses in Theater and Literature.

And yes, I think those classes helped me to be more fully integrated into the world. I've dealt with telecom engineers who didn't understand the economics of not spending several million dollars on a switch unless you expect the same amount back in revenue, and I've seen IT people who couldn't follow a logical argument, and any number of people who could have benefited from a little understanding of other people, as learned in psychology classes.

But mostly, I enjoyed learning about aspects of the world not covered by mathematical sciences.

You can get culture from museums and books, but that doesn't teach you to actually process the information on a serious level. I get more out of museums because of those classes, and more out of reading books having learned a lot about how they are written, and how they affect people. And obviously, I get more out of Russian novels I have read than I could get out of not reading them.

[Grinner]

I'm frankly surprised that anyone would have a problem with the well-roundedness requirements...

I sense this discussion, if it picks up again, will begin to loop.

It was mentioned somewhere upthread that colleges provide what you might call an "education". By that, I mean an introduction to a wide variety of topics designed to produce an intellectually-capable individual. This is suitable for someone with fewer responsibilities outside of school. I'm reminded a bit of the film Dead Poet's Society. This is fine. Fun, even. But I suspect it's not for everyone.

I think Starwulf's point was that his friend was looking for more what you might call a "trade". Or maybe his friend is mostly cool with that, and Starwulf was just a bit irked. I don't know. I wasn't there. Anyway, if I were the gambling sort, I might bet that his friend isn't looking to learn about critical thinking. He just wants to get in, learn what he needs in order to secure better employment prospects, and get out with as little debt as possible, having other things to worry about at this juncture.

[noparlpf]

US culture tells us that college is for getting a good job, but then college doesn't prepare you for a specific job, it teaches old-fashioned liberal arts academia in exchange for obscene amounts of money. So then you come out of college expecting to find a job, but you're not prepared for most jobs, so now you're just twice as poor as beforehand and still have no real income.

Academia for its own sake used to be for wealthy people because they didn't need to worry about supporting themselves. Now we're expected to be academics and support ourselves simultaneously and the two systems don't mesh well yet.

[Grinner]

US culture tells us that college is for getting a good job, but then college doesn't prepare you for a specific job, it teaches old-fashioned liberal arts academia in exchange for obscene amounts of money. So then you come out of college expecting to find a job, but you're not prepared for most jobs, so now you're just twice as poor as beforehand and still have no real income.

Academia for its own sake used to be for wealthy people because they didn't need to worry about supporting themselves. Now we're expected to be academics and support ourselves simultaneously and the two systems don't mesh well yet.

While I think you've pretty much nailed the conflict down, I think you're also underestimating the usefulness of higher education. The company I work for only hires college graduates for management and corporate positions, and I hear certain locations afford quicker promotions to lower-level employees with degrees as well.

[Rockphed]

The way it was explained by one of my professors, the difference between an education and learning is what separates getting a degree from just taking classes. Now why is an education important? As some people have mentioned, a broad base of experience allows you to operate at a higher level in society. It teaches the ability to understand someone else without having to agree with them, an ability sorely lacking in modern America (hence ridiculous political debates where both sides talk past each other.)

Also, they force you to take those classes because, although everyone should take them in high school, they cannot guarantee that anyone actually has. Much the same reason all students are required to take college algebra, which corresponds nicely to the pre-calc class I took as a junior in high school. And why some of them require a civics class, even though almost every state requires a civics class. Lots of people who graduate from high school cannot understand culture. Lots of people who graduate from high school cannot do algebra. Lots of people who graduate from high school have about as much understanding of how their government works as they do of the physics of a nuclear power plant.

A couple weeks ago I heard about a medical school that is getting humanities students in their sophomore year, supplementing their science education with what they actually want, and seeing a much more diverse medical school population because of it. This leads to the doctors not just being a bunch of people obsessed about science, but a group of people who can operate as people. And it is the whole group that operates better, not just the humanities people.

[noparlpf]

While I think you've pretty much nailed the conflict down, I think you're also underestimating the usefulness of higher education. The company I work for only hires college graduates for management and corporate positions, and I hear certain locations afford quicker promotions to lower-level employees with degrees as well.

True, but the BA in creative writing probably won't actually make you significantly better at doing that management job just because it helps you get the job.


Also, they force you to take those classes because, although everyone should take them in high school, they cannot guarantee that anyone actually has.

Sure they can. If the colleges get together and agree that X, Y, and Z are required to get into college, high schools will have to start including X, Y, and Z too. It just requires a concerted effort.

[Grinner]

Sure they can. If the colleges get together and agree that X, Y, and Z are required to get into college, high schools will have to start including X, Y, and Z too. It just requires a concerted effort.

It's not that simple. Not everyone who enters a college has attended high school. Moreover, different schools have different ideas as to what the objectives of any given course should consist of. Not even different teachers teaching the same course at the same school agree on that, actually...

[wfbarnes]

I can possibly accept that in highschool, but in college? If you don't already know how to examine problems from multiple angles you shouldn't be in college in the first place.

This is a misconception. You aren't done when you enter college, you are beginning. Most people learn how to examine problems from multiple angles in college, not high school. Now, if you were arguing about graduate school then I could see your point.

[Rodin]

While I think you've pretty much nailed the conflict down, I think you're also underestimating the usefulness of higher education. The company I work for only hires college graduates for management and corporate positions, and I hear certain locations afford quicker promotions to lower-level employees with degrees as well.

This was the reason I was given when I was tempted to drop out of college. The piece of paper was far more important than the learning. In actual fact, I went into college to learn how to code and discovered halfway through that I don't actually like coding. After struggling through college, I picked a job in IT that didn't require coding.

The degree ensured that I got hired, and the coding I did learn is useful on a daily basis in terms of reading code and troubleshooting errors. However, I learned massively more practical knowledge in my first year on the job than I did in 6 years of college, and then repeated that burst of learning a few years later when I changed departments. The degree enabled all that by getting me the job in the first place.

The trouble is, if I hadn't had scholarships (and parents able to pick up the tab when the scholarships fell through), I would be dealing with massive debt from all that time spent in college. I don't think a liberal arts education is worth that for a lot of people, who would be much better served by getting into the industry as quickly as possible. A work study program would be nice - 6 months school, 6 months in industry. The time in business pays off the college work, and you're also learning practical info as well as work skills. The college work can then focus on the more intellectual pursuits and providing a well-rounded education.

[Chen]

While I think you've pretty much nailed the conflict down, I think you're also underestimating the usefulness of higher education. The company I work for only hires college graduates for management and corporate positions, and I hear certain locations afford quicker promotions to lower-level employees with degrees as well.

This in and of itself is an issue. I know people who are more than qualified for these types of management positions but because of this whole "degree requirement" they need to go back to school to get promoted. And guess what they're taking the most pointless bull**** courses and will get their degree. And then they'll be promoted because they have everything needed to be promoted except the stupid piece of paper. This is an absurdity. Companies hamstringing themselves like this is a huge part of the whole problem of EVERYONE needing to go to university. University is NOT for everyone. We need to get that idea out of people's heads.

[Tyndmyr]

They just want students to be well-rounded and get a broader perspective, really.

In a sense. But the utility of that has always seemed questionable. I mean, people have hobbies and crap outside of their major regardless. It's not like I would never have been exposed to the arts if my college had lacked an art requirement. I mean...I had six years of music before I set foot in college. And you have electives regardless, right?

Mostly, folks munchkined the selection to minimize work and hassle regardless, which strikes me as exactly the opposite of what you'd want for a good exposure anyway. For instance, taking classes that you already knew the contents of, solely because you hate the category, and want to reduce effort. For pure electives, they were much more likely to select things solely because they were interesting, which seems like a far, far better way to get a broad exposure.

I like the theory of a well rounded education, but I'm not at all sure that college degree plans support that well. It feels like they couldn't make up their mind between pursuing generalized education and specializing, and thus kinda halfassed both, making a needlessly complicated system that only rewards optimizers.

I mean, sure, *I'm* an optimizer, so I was doing fine...until I realized that with sufficient optimization, I could ditch college entirely before finishing my BS, and never look back. This worked out fantastically for me. It is also probably not the outcome that colleges should be encouraging.

So, while I don't really regret my time in college at all, I do think that it could be set up a lot better to support the fact that not every student is the same, and rigid degree plans may not fit everyone. Sure, keep the skeleton of requirements for the major, but make the other stuff as open and flexible as possible. Keeping learning interesting is huge. Too many people get overwelmed and give up, or simply grow fatigued with the endless box-checking, or prioritize beating the system over actually learning. All of these are larger problems than any benefits of a one-size-fits-all system.

[Zrak]

I can possibly accept that in highschool, but in college? If you don't already know how to examine problems from multiple angles you shouldn't be in college in the first place.

I don't think the idea is so much to create critical thinking or introduce multiple ways to approach problems, as though for the first time, but to maintain those skills. As your education becomes more and more focused, it's very easy to get "stuck" in your discipline and its typical worldview or approach to problem solving, and I think the general idea of "gen ed" requirements is to sort of remind you that there exist other ways to look at the world. Probably the easiest and broadest example is the book Fashionable Nonsense.

Fashionable Nonsense was written by a few practicing scientists as an attack on what they saw as the emptiness and scientific inaccuracies of postmodern philosophy and literary criticism; what it ended up being was a series of pretty good examples of philosophers and literary critics misunderstanding science spread throughout a series of equally good examples of scientists misunderstanding philosophers and literary critics. Rather than demonstrating that postmodernism was, to quote the title, merely fashionable nonsense, it demonstrated the hazards of approaching all fields from the same perspective; to someone who's actually studied literary criticism, the authors of the book look as ignorant and silly as some of the philosophers they lambaste look to those who've actually studied math and science.

That said, I don't really think the US-style liberal arts model really solves this problem, since I think it's intrinsic to the way we treat knowledge, not to the specific knowledge people happen to acquire. If anything, the "gen ed" model encourages this kind of thinking by making classes outside your field, and thus other systems of knowledge and styles of reasoning, arbitrary requirements and thereby giving the impression that other ways of looking at the world are not valid perspectives of equal weight and import, but inane hoops through which one has to jump. Moreover, the idea that "gen ed" makes you competent in these other fields gives the illusion that you can approach problems from that perspective with a reasonable level of expertise, which in turn provides the illusion that this field is so simple you can understand it relatively completely after two electives. Thus you see the scientists convinced all literary theory is gibberish other people merely pretend to understand because they obviously would be able to understand if it actually made sense, seeing as they once knew what the "theme" of one book was this one time and, on the other hand, the art students convinced that having learned the phrase "sample size" makes them as competent to review data as practicing scientist and professional statisticians.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Where on Earth is this ridiculous idea coming from that all the post-secondary schools in the United States are liberal arts styled? Because that just isn't true.

[danzibr]

It's a cash grab.

[noparlpf]

Where on Earth is this ridiculous idea coming from that all the post-secondary schools in the United States are liberal arts styled? Because that just isn't true.

Compared to some other countries, the standard model in the US (with gen ed requirements as well as major requirements) is "liberal arts."

[AtlanteanTroll]

General education requirements are the antithesis of a liberal arts education.

[noparlpf]

General education requirements are the antithesis of a liberal arts education.

I think the idea is to force students to get a liberal arts education whether they want to or not. So you're not wrong about the spirit of it, but that's what that model is often called.

[Jay R]

Because without cross-class ranks in Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering), Roy would never have beaten Thog in the arena.

[noparlpf]

Because without cross-class ranks in Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering), Roy would never have beaten Thog in the arena.

If Roy were actually that smart he wouldn't have gone straight Fighter in 3.X and wouldn't have needed Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering) to beat Thog. :smalltongue:

[Rockphed]

General education requirements are the antithesis of a liberal arts education.

That depends on the nature of the requirement. Requiring that degrees only be awarded to students who show a sufficient breadth of education seems proper. Also, remember that the Liberal Arts are grammar, rhetoric, arithmetic, logic, geometry, music, and astronomy. A devotee of one subject who is wholly ignorant of the others is not properly educated to receive a degree.

[Bulldog Psion]

Well, when I entered the university, my parents were pressuring me to be a computer programmer. Tried it, hated it. Additionally, the guy running the department loathed me at first sight, and the feeling was mutual, so I departed from that.

Ended up majoring in economics. I was good at it and enjoyed it.

However, I also took some meteorology and geology classes to satisfy the science requirements.

I ended up as a professional freelance writer. I'd say I've easily made 400% of the money on geology and meteorology articles that I've made on economics articles. You never know what's going to be useful in the long run.

Additionally, I find that I appreciate life a little more because of that extra bit of knowledge. When it starts raining, I know why; when I look at a landscape, I know what forces shaped it, and can imagine those slow, majestic, elemental changes as they must have played out over thousands or millions of years...

My two silver pieces on why the U.S. university setup has something to recommend it.

[Jay R]

If Roy were actually that smart he wouldn't have gone straight Fighter in 3.X and wouldn't have needed Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering) to beat Thog. :smalltongue:

It's not about being smart. It's about being educated. I left college with the same IQ I went in with, but with much more knowledge.

[And after Roy's father was so insulting about Fighters, there was no chance Roy would become anything else.]

[AtlanteanTroll]

That depends on the nature of the requirement. Requiring that degrees only be awarded to students who show a sufficient breadth of education seems proper. Also, remember that the Liberal Arts are grammar, rhetoric, arithmetic, logic, geometry, music, and astronomy. A devotee of one subject who is wholly ignorant of the others is not properly educated to receive a degree.
No, not even.

It is true that those seven areas of study are part of the liberal arts--though that's a dated understanding, as the modern liberal arts also encompass literature, history, language, philosophy, and science--but requirements serve to limit the scope of ones' education. Even if you do have a more dedicated area of study with your major.

The liberal arts are about getting more generally educated, yes, but in the collegiate setting, they're also about smaller classes sizes and lower teacher-to-student ratios. The idea that American schools generally fall into that style is ridiculous. What people are describing in this thread again and again are private schools, which definitely don't make up the majority of the student population. I'd be shocked if they even made up a plurality.

[Rockphed]

No, not even.

It is true that those seven areas of study are part of the liberal arts--though that's a dated understanding, as the modern liberal arts also encompass literature, history, language, philosophy, and science--but requirements serve to limit the scope of ones' education. Even if you do have a more dedicated area of study with your major.

The liberal arts are about getting more generally educated, yes, but in the collegiate setting, they're also about smaller classes sizes and lower teacher-to-student ratios. The idea that American schools generally fall into that style is ridiculous. What people are describing in this thread again and again are private schools, which definitely don't make up the majority of the student population. I'd be shocked if they even made up a plurality.

Class size at the community college I attended averaged about 30.

Class size at the private university I attended averaged about 100 for non-technical classes. It averaged about 20 for in-major technical classes, but that was mostly because the lab rooms only had so many seats.

I'm not even sure what you are saying in the first half of your post. "Requirements serve to limit the scope of one's education?" I am not following your logic there.

[Diamondeye]

Fine art credits for virtually all degrees? A buddy of mine is about to go to college for a computer science/engineering degree(major/minor), and he apparently HAS to take a fine arts or language class even though it has absolutely NOTHING to do with his degree.

You answered your own question. A little knowledge of other languages is undeniably useful. Frankly, they're going easy on you by allowing fine arts as a choice.

[noparlpf]

I can understand requiring foreign languages. (And I regret that I've lost so much of my Spanish to disuse since finishing my college requirements, because I used to speak proficiently if not fluently.) The US seems to be one of the only countries these days where the majority of the population is only monolingual (at best), and the people who are bilingual are primarily the children of recent immigrants whose families still speak other languages. (Heck, even though my grandfather's parents spoke like four or five languages each he can only speak English himself.) Whereas most European countries seem to expect people to speak at least 2-3 languages proficiently.

[Knaight]

As regards covering things in high school - to some extent that just isn't practical. There's a class of subjects that can be reasonably assumed to be fairly universal, but there's also classes of subjects which are wide enough that only a small portion can be taught. Meanwhile, it's still helpful for people to have a broader knowledge, even when it's possible for people to game the system by just replicating classes they took in high school to some extent.

Languages are an excellent example of this. My highschool had three foreign languages, covering only Spanish, French, and German. Other schools that were available added Latin, but that was about it for the town. A different focus probably could have added a few more, but the highschool was simply too small to support dozens of languages. The university does that with no trouble. A highschool probably has one or two history classes to chose from for any given grade, plus an AP and/or IB version in better funded schools. A university can cover much more material. In both of these cases, someone could just take the language they took in highschool and a history class that maps to highschool material in the hope of an easy A; these can also help people get a broader understanding.

There's also the matter of how a lot of U.S. highschools just do a terrible job, whereas the standards are generally higher for universities. Sure, the existence of some classes can be mandated, but there's no good way to get around the legions of parents whining about how they personally don't like that their child was assigned some book and it thus has to be removed from the curriculum and school library; there's no good way to get around the influences of people who just don't want to be there and disrupt things, so on and so forth. Even in a near ideal scenario, highschools are working with people who enter with 8-10 years of previous schooling (with the 10 case including kindergarten and assuming a highschool starting at 10th grade), colleges are working with people who enter with 12-13. That makes a lot of difference regarding what skills and previous knowledge can be expected, and thus what doesn't need to take class time.

[Psyren]

I can possibly accept that in highschool, but in college? If you don't already know how to examine problems from multiple angles you shouldn't be in college in the first place.

That's the point though, you have to prove it. It's not enough to say "okay, he got in, he must be able to come at problems from multiple angles." Accredited institutions have to evidence that before you get your degree.

Basically you have it backwards - high school is what doesn't matter, in multiple ways.

[noparlpf]

That's the point though, you have to prove it. It's not enough to say "okay, he got in, he must be able to come at problems from multiple angles." Accredited institutions have to evidence that before you get your degree.

Basically you have it backwards - high school is what doesn't matter, in multiple ways.

Shouldn't the high school transcript and/or entrance/placement exams cover that? Rather than four semesters and $16k-$120k tuition just to repeat all the basics?

But yeah American high school is basically a joke. A really bad joke.

[Knaight]

Shouldn't the high school transcript and/or entrance/placement exams cover that? Rather than four semesters and $16k-$120k tuition just to repeat all the basics?

You generally can test out of a lot of stuff, and there are a number of highschool programs that get college credit in some way, whether it's going to community college while also in highschool (which is paid by the district), AP/IB college equivalent classes, or even highschool study groups that aim to get you to pass CLEP tests.

[noparlpf]

You generally can test out of a lot of stuff, and there are a number of highschool programs that get college credit in some way, whether it's going to community college while also in highschool (which is paid by the district), AP/IB college equivalent classes, or even highschool study groups that aim to get you to pass CLEP tests.

Where I've been, "testing out" just meant you could start at a higher level (calc 2 instead of calc 1 or algebra, for example) but you still needed to fill the credits. So instead of testing out of Spanish 1 and then only needing Spanish 2, I had to take Spanish 2 and then wait a year for Spanish 3 to be offered again.

And some schools also don't accept AP courses as two-semester courses (like Chem 1/2 and Physics 1/2), so you end up having to redo the second half even though the AP courses typically cover both semesters. I said forget that and just took both semesters of Physics over so I wouldn't forget it all in the interim.

Long story short, high school was a huge waste of time for me after maybe tenth grade.

[Psyren]

Shouldn't the high school transcript and/or entrance/placement exams cover that? Rather than four semesters and $16k-$120k tuition just to repeat all the basics?

In a word, no. Quality varies wildly at the high school level, and attempts to standardize a high school education (GED, SAT, ACT etc.) tend to focus on the more quantitative and easily-quizzed subjects like grammar and math, neglecting the fine arts entirely. So to keep up with the rest of the world, where an intellectual is a truly well-rounded individual, this requirement has to be enforced at the post-secondary (college) level.


But yeah American high school is basically a joke. A really bad joke.

Public schools especially. But discussing that further will probably lead to political areas.

[Douglas]

Where I've been, "testing out" just meant you could start at a higher level (calc 2 instead of calc 1 or algebra, for example) but you still needed to fill the credits. So instead of testing out of Spanish 1 and then only needing Spanish 2, I had to take Spanish 2 and then wait a year for Spanish 3 to be offered again.
Where I went to college I tested out of a bunch of courses, some through Advanced Placement exam results for high school courses, some through taking a test at the college, and I received credit as if I had taken and passed each course I tested out of. The only difference from actually taking them was that they were left out of GPA calculations.

[noparlpf]

Where I went to college I tested out of a bunch of courses, some through Advanced Placement exam results for high school courses, some through taking a test at the college, and I received credit as if I had taken and passed each course I tested out of. The only difference from actually taking them was that they were left out of GPA calculations.

That sounds like a decent system. I'd be okay with that. As long as it means high school meant something.

[Rockphed]

That sounds like a decent system. I'd be okay with that. As long as it means high school meant something.

Honestly, high school means nothing if you go on to higher education. If I could do it over, I would either finagle how to graduate a couple years early, or just get a GED and go to community college for a couple years. I would have spent less time angry at the world and might have learned proper study habits instead of having to unlearn how to sleep and read my way through class, never do homework, and ace all tests ever.

[Solaris]

While I agree it's nice that people know how to properly compose a sentence, I again point to elementary-middle school. If you didn't learn how to do those things at that point in time, I'm not really sure you're college material, as that is literally the most basic of basic stuff.

I loathe the English/writing requirements after high school. I disliked them back in high school and elementary school, but at least then I wasn't paying for them out of pocket. Leaving aside that my own writing abilities are more than adequate for just about anything short of writing the next Great American Novel, if the first twelve years didn't stick, why would they think the next two to four would?


They just want students to be well-rounded and get a broader perspective, really.

That's swell, but you're not going to get either of those in a college classroom. Furthermore, I'd like to not have to waste money to get a degree simply to justify the continued existence of a department that's utterly worthless to me. I'm barely scraping by as it is, and I have more life experience than most of my professors - why in God's name should I be wasting my money on a 'well-rounded and broader perspective' handed to me in canned form by an academic when it won't help me in the least?


In theory, you're giving all children a solid foundation for the rest of your lives. In practice, it's teenage day care. I have had a teacher chastise me for getting ahead of the class. That's right - I was actually told to stop learning so much.

I had to teach my senior year math teacher advanced algebra so she could teach me advanced algebra. I literally had to help her through the material I'd learned in junior year before I transferred so she could go through the motions of 'teaching' it to me while the rest of the class wasted their time with arithmetic.
I wish I was joking.
I also wish I'd managed to get something beyond algebra out of the school system, but that would have required some baseline competence that just wasn't in there.

[Zrak]

I hate it when people say they have "life experience." What is that supposed to mean? Everyone has life experience. I drank some coffee this morning, when I was neither dead nor unconscious. That was life, I experienced it. Do you mean you have consumed more coffee than your professors? Or do you mean that you have a wider variety of experiences, like you've tried a higher total number of beverages than them? Or do you mean your experiences have more value than theirs, like you drink meaningful coffee and they don't? Who decides this?

Also, you wish you were joking. When forming sentences that do not describe objective facts, such as hypothetical or counter-factual statements, one uses the subjunctive mood. For example, one might say "if your writing abilities were more than adequate, you would know how to use the subjunctive mood," or "if I were going to write a post about having nothing to learn from an English class, I would check my grammar more carefully before posting it." :smalltongue:

[Rockphed]

I loathe the English/writing requirements after high school. I disliked them back in high school and elementary school, but at least then I wasn't paying for them out of pocket. Leaving aside that my own writing abilities are more than adequate for just about anything short of writing the next Great American Novel, if the first twelve years didn't stick, why would they think the next two to four would?

While I agree with you that elementary and secondary writing classes tend towards uselessness, I disagree with your conclusion that elementary and secondary methods are necessarily the same as the old college try. I took 4 writing classes in my college career. 2 I failed miserably. 1 I barely scraped by in. 1 I flourished in. The one I barely scraped by in was perhaps the most useful because it was taught by somebody who knew that writing and dissecting literature is not what the english language was created to do (in so far as the people who created the english language had any intention while they made it up).

No the english language is designed to lie to people. That we can lie about things that don't even exist is a product of our humanity, not any virtue of our shared language. We lie about how much the eggs we want too buy are worth, and then we lie about how much the gold (or silver or copper) disks are worth. We like about everything, including that we are lying. And when we stretch our powers of lying just right, we change the universe, and our lies become truth.

[Douglas]

And when we stretch our powers of lying just right, we change the universe, and our lies become truth.
For example, most forms of currency have value only because everyone thinks they do.

[Zrak]

It's not even just currency. It's really anything to which people attribute value or, for that matter, any other abstract concept.

[Scarlet Knight]

I hate it when people say they have "life experience." What is that supposed to mean?

"If Johnny knocks over a 7-11 at 3am and takes $200.13 plus 1 case of Mountain Dew and can run 5 miles an hour while the police chasing him can go 50 miles per hour, how many years in Attica will he receive?"

[Zrak]

Trick question, no way Johnny's going to a supermax.