<p>I know MANY MANY people who have changed their majors as a result of courses they took reluctantly, with the intention only of meeting their distribution requirements. My son (as one example) took an economics course last semester for his humanities requirement (yes, at MIT, it's a humanities course) and this semester decided to take another econ course and a finance course... with a planned humanities concentration in econ. Previously, he was planning on philosophy for his hum conc. </p>
<p>IMHO, the great thing about distribution requirements is the exposure to other areas. In choosing a college, I encouraged both kids to look seriously at colleges that still had such requirements, although I realize that some colleges have (yecck!) dropped them.</p>
<p>The breadth idea is an American concept. Overseas universities prefer that you concentrate in one, maybe two areas. Overseas high schools often steer you in that direction as well.</p>
<p>I like the breadth idea too, but there are many many fine intellectuals who learned otherwise.</p>
<p>I definitely agree with cheers...there are benefits to both the depth and breadth theories of education, and both have produced "fine intellectuals." From what I know of overseas primary education, students are often geared toward certain disciplines before college. In some countries, educational paths (trade school, college prep, or whatever else is available) are chosen very, very early on in education--pre high-school. The problem as I see it as that in the US, with the exception of some special programs (speciality schools, magnet schools, or some unique individuals), this isn't practiced to a comparable degree. Because we're not focused earlier on, many of us enter college with no clear idea of what we want to do, and without the opportunity for and, more importantly, the encouragement for breadth of study, this can be pretty intimidating. It was nice for me to know that I had an excuse to try out many disciplines without just being labeled as "fiddling around" or something. When I came to school, I knew I liked certain subjects, but for even more subjects, I had never had any exposure at all, and perhaps never will. Even though I'm perfectly happy with what I am studying, it would be nice if I felt I had the time to explore introductory classes in all the areas I wanted (which, admittedly, is a LOT).</p>
<p>I agree that both have their merits, just a thought on why I think that breadth tends to better suit the experiences and needs of US students in more cases. This is not at all to say that no US students enter college with a clear cut plan and idea of what they want to do, just that I don't think this type of student represents an overwhelming majority.</p>
<p>In response to the OP: I happen to be a fan of the breadth theory. I think that it increases ones versatility in terms of potential employment, and leads to a greater understanding of the interrelation of seemingly unrelated subjects (which is a very important recognition of depth, in itself). I also have a great deal of respect for those who are willing to push the limits of their own comfort and try to gain a basic understanding of fields of study outside their own. If I'm talking about something I'm passionate about with someone who's involved in a completely different field and they jump in with any sort of knowledge or interest, it's much more interesting than someone whose knowledge barely extends beyond their own circle of experience. At Scripps, you will inevitably be exposed to a breadth of study, and while the requirements can be pretty annoying at times, and while I certainly do my own fair share of whining about them, it is very helpful in relating to people in other majors and in supplementing your own studies with external perspectives.</p>