Caltech Named World's Top University in New Times Higher Education Global Ranking

Parents Forum
381

<p>

</p>

<p>Not every student is going to come from a high school that has AP (or similar level) biology, chemistry or physics - or if they were active in other activities, they might not be able to take it. Think of a student going to the local high school that annasdad referred to. </p>

<p>Frankly I think it comes across as fake to load up on AP courses in topics that don’t interest you. My science-y D didn’t take AP English and my humanities-oriented S didn’t take any AP science, and I’m glad they didn’t. I’d rather they focus on the areas that interested them and go in depth versus load up for the sake of loading up. They’ll still have to have exposure and distribution requirements in college, which is fine. </p>

<p>Frankly, for both of them, I feel more strongly about having them demonstrate proficiency in a foreign language than proficiency in biology / chemistry / physics. </p>

<p>I don’t know D’s distribution requirements off the top of my head; I do know S’s, since they were the same as mine were. His encompasses 2 courses in each of 6 different focus areas, science being one of the focus areas, plus proficiency in a foreign language. I don’t see science being any more or less important than any of the other 5 areas, and I’m amused by the STEM triumphalism (love that phrase!) that elevates science above the others in importance.</p>

382

<p>LOL. Older son took nothing but math, physics and comp sci, having come in with lots of APs. He was a happy camper. Younger son likes the distribution requirements where he is, in theory at least, though would love options where he doesn’t have to take other people’s weeder courses. He’s doing an environmental science course this semester. He’s an Int Rel guy, but took AP Physics C and AP Bio.</p>

<p>My older son didn’t take AP courses that didn’t interest him because he was fake, he took them because they were still the appropriate level of instruction for him. And as I pointed out when he was whining about signing up for AP US History there was a good chance that if he took it in high school he’d never have to take it again, which turned out to be true. (He also took AP Latin, so he’s proficient in a language, just not a very useful one!)</p>

383

<p>

</p>

<p>No. Balance is important. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. I don’t see anything wrong with a student who is taking 3 “hard” classes in his or her major fulfilling a distribution requirement with a science-for-non-science-majors or introductory type of class - and having some fun learning about an area he or she wouldn’t have otherwise learned about. Not everything has to be dialed to 11 all the time. College is for exploration, not cramming. I would so prefer my kids have the fun to explore, oh, I don’t know, ancient Greek philosophy or Asian art history or Indian history or a drawing or painting class rather than load up on “serious” biology, chemistry and physics because some STEMmie can’t possibly envision how anyone could not just be utterly fascinated by all of these topics.</p>

384

<p>

</p>

<p>STEMmie? Did you invent that word? LOL.</p>

<p>I’m not sure who you are referring to, because, believe it or not, I had a very strong interest in the humanities. I don’t feel very strongly on the matter of science distribution requirements, although I would think a liberal arts philosophy would expect you to engage in the actual type of thinking which goes on in a particular field rather than pass through it like a tourist, which is what I feel these “physics for poets” classes are like. U. of Chicago and Columbia have core curriculum. What do they do? Do they require any science classes? </p>

<p>BTW, I would think that most ivy league students would be able to pass out of science classes anyway if the only requirement was to get a 5 on the AP.</p>

385

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think people should specialize until they reach college level. That’s just my personal philosophy. And I think there is value in stretching yourself in what you aren’t “good at.” I am not one of those people that thinks that fields are silos with no relationship to each other. If you can’t understand calculus, then my belief is that somewhere your analytical ability is limited. Vice versa, I am suspicious when people can chug through equations and get a 5 on their AP sciences but they think english and history is a waste of time. My instinct is that perhaps they aren’t thinking deeply in their science classes, that they aren’t connecting things together or thinking creatively.<br>
However, even if it isn’t natural for someone, I think they do gain something from stretching themselves in something that is hard for them in the same way that cross-training works for athletes. A certain type of thinking may be beneficial in english, but absolutely required for calculus. So a person deficient in that thinking may be able to do well in english, but not be able to make certain types of insights. For that person, working until they understand calculus may help their literary analysis skills.</p>

386

<p>

</p>

<p>I imagine a reason why a lot of STEM people hate on people that take simplified STEM courses is that there often isn’t a similar equivalent offered in the humanities. STEM students are often left with taking the giant Intro to XYZ that’s taught by an uninterested professor, is uninspiring material, and generally just pretty boring. Likewise, I don’t think humanities people should have to take the giant lecture hall courses in science. Let them take a class like “Useful Biology” so they understand why homeopathy is bunk and can look at pharmaceutical commercials critically.</p>

<p>Also, for reference, math departments also grumble about how engineering/science majors often take light, non-rigorous classes and how it’s crap that they just treat math as a tool. ;)</p>

<p>As for what classes STEM people should take to get a well-rounded education, well, you’ve got eight classes for me to spend, so give me a few fields you think might be worthwhile. =p</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>See, the thing is, to a lot of hardcore STEM students, exploring means taking science classes out of your own field. I was a materials engineering student, and I took a bunch of my free electives in chemistry and physics. To me, that was exploring since the material covered was actually considerably outside my field.</p>

<p>If I gave you the choice of drinking Coke, Diet Coke, Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Sprite, 7-Up, root beer, or ginger ale would you say I gave you eight choices of what to drink, or just one because they’re all kinds of soda? It seems to me you feel all STEM courses are just one kind of soda.</p>

387

<p>Any subject can be taught poorly enough to make it deadly, especially for a student who does not have a natural interest in that particular subject. Conversely, I believe that a good teacher and a well-designed course can make any subject interesting. </p>

<p>I am definitely not a “STEMmie” - I started out as a history major, finished up as a management major, and took the minimum math and science to get by. Yet I cannot imagine that a well-taught course in math or any of the sciences would fail to spark the interest of any but the most stubborn non-techie. After all, what young child is not interested in the way the world works; I don’t think anyone naturally loses that as he or she goes into the teenaged years, though it can be - and often is - extinguished through the determined efforts of our education system.</p>

<p>And a well-taught and well-designed course would be “rigorous,” although it might not be the same course that a potential major in the field would take. It would require the student to actively engage the subject matter and think through problems like a scientist or mathematician might.</p>

<p>And I would say the same for history, or literature, or art, or foreign language. They can be taught poorly (I’m tempted to add, “i.e., traditionally”) and turn people off. They can also be taught in ways that engage the learner’s curiosity and interest.</p>

<p>IMO, such an education benefits not only the individual; it also benefits society. We are not well-served when we have voters (much less decision makers!) who do not understand the fundamentals of how science works, or how life evolves, or how the earth responds to various stimuli - or how our constitution has evolved, or how the economic system works, or how people interact with each other in social settings, or how other cultures resemble and do not resemble our own.</p>

388

<p>Agreed, annasdad. </p>

<p>So what is your proof for your assertion that the courses at Yale (just to pick on Yale; sorry, Hunt) that are taken by non-majors as part of general distribution requirements don’t fill this brief and are just slacker rocks-for-jocks types of courses? I am distinguishing, by the way, between rocks-for-jocks and science for non-science majors.</p>

389

<p>

</p>

<p>I didn’t say that - but can you appreciate that a non-science student might not have time to load up on biology, chemistry and physics (as discrete courses)?</p>

390

<p>Its interesting to read outsiders opinions about Techer interests outisde of STEM fields. From my limited sample, I found many entusiastic readers and writers. To quote from the Caltech website:</p>

<p>Humanities and Social Sciences
Humanities courses are essential to the development of scientists who can communicate across academic disciplines and understand the cultural and political conditions that affect their work. Students explore concepts from the philosophy of science to the behaviors of individuals within economic and political institutions. Techers refine the communication and analytical skills that will compliment the knowledge they gain within the scientific curriculum.</p>

<p>A Sample of Fun Humanities and Social Science courses: </p>

<p>Auctions (Economics): This course covers basic topics in auction theory and discusses more advanced theory such as mechanism design, multi-unit auctions, and interdependent valuations. The course will also discuss practical considerations that arise when designing auctions to sell licenses in a particular industry</p>

<p>Women on the Edge (English): This class considers how women’s writing in the 20th century often flouts the conventional portrayal of woman as ministering angel preoccupied with the needs of family without much regard to her own. Writers to be read include Kate Chopin, Colette, Marguerite Duras, Sylvia Plath, Angela Carter, Jeanette Winterson, Toni Morrison, Elfriede Jelinek. </p>

<p>The Science Fiction Film (History/Film): This course introduces students to some of the classic works of the science fiction film from the earliest days of cinema until the present.</p>

<p>Science, Ethics, & Public Policy (Philosophy):This course discusses some moral and social issues concerning research in the sciences (chiefly, biomedicine, with special attention to stem-cell research.)</p>

<p>Forbidden Knowledge (History & Philosophy of Science): When and how has the notion of freedom of knowledge and teaching in science emerged? What kinds of restrictions have been placed on scientists, their publications and institutions? </p>

<p>Humanities and Social Science core courses:</p>

<p>•two terms emphasizing writing
•two terms of introductory social-science courses
•two terms of advanced humanities courses
•two terms of advanced social-science courses
•the remaining four courses may be chosen from any of the humanities or social science offerings
Languages offered:</p>

<p>•Chinese
•French
•German
•Spanish
•Japanese
The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens, Caltech’s neighbor and counterpart research institution in the</p>

391

<p>I don’t see what the essential difference is between these kinds of courses - as humanities for science majors - and the kinds of science courses for humanities majors that most schools have to fulfill distribution requirements. Either way, you give a kid who tends to prefer / like / enjoy X an intriguing taste of Y. Perhaps I’m missing something.</p>

392

<p>

</p>

<p>Had I ever made such an assertion, you can rest assured I would have rock-solid proof - or at least good hard evidence - for it. But since I haven’t made any such assertion, I must regretfully report that I have no such proof.</p>

<p>You really need to learn how to scroll back through a thread to see what people have actually said before you start making assertions about who said what - that’s twice just today that you’ve misidentified me as the source of something somebody else apparently said.</p>

<p>My problem with Yale and the like isn’t with course selection; it is the lack of rigor with which courses are taught (in terms of course requirements) and the intellectually challenging environment that many students apparently are able to avoid for four years. My evidence (I will not call it “proof”) for that is the written testimony of someone who taught at Yale and Columbia for many years and says that it exists. The evidence against it is testimony by students and former students who say it’s not so. Your choice.</p>

393

<p>

</p>

<p>Fair enough. I agree most STEM students don’t feel they have the time to take all those humanities classes in their distribution requirements since they’ve generally got those giant lists of mandatory classes that’s keeping them from being well rounded. ;)</p>

394

<p>Here’s a list of “The 12 Colleges with the Happiest Freshmen”.</p>

<p>Merely a reflection of their family’s wealth. Retention rate is directly related to wealth, and the school’s wealth in making it possible for economically poorer students to stay in school when financial troubles hit at home.</p>

<p>Most second-tier undergraduate business schools have stiffer distributional requirements than I see reflected here.</p>

<p>As for schools with Core Requirements, having taught in one, the only school that I know of that has a set that makes any real intellectual sense is Scripps. (Others will feel differently.)</p>

395

<p>Well, as a double major in math and econ, I felt I had a foot in both camps :-). </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You explicitly suggested that Rochester / UIUC / Penn State / a bunch of other schools you listed (am on iPad so can’t easily go back and check) didn’t suffer from these flaws - hence, if given the choice, you’d prefer your daughter go there instead of Yale, and suggested that people who would choose Yale were doing so out of P-R-E-S-T-I-G-E. What is your proof that these places have a stronger rigor and a more intellectually challenging environment? I mean, believe me, I have no dog in the Yale fight, and I am certainly not the Ivy uber-alles type, and I absolutely believe a lot of colleges offer good educations and a motivated student can get a great education almost anywhere, but you’re making some pretty strong assertions based on the say-so of someone who has demonstrated being pretty wildly out of touch with reality, as evidenced by the incapability of talking to the plumber like a fellow human being.</p>

396

<p>

</p>

<p>At both Caltech and MIT, you have to take 4 full years of humanities courses. Why do STEM students have to make time to take humanities classes, but it’s okay for everyone else to skip out on math and science?</p>

397

<p>

</p>

<p>You really don’t know what you’re talking about, do you?</p>

398

<p>No one is suggesting skipping out on math and science - at least I’m not - but we are suggesting that there is nothing wrong with good courses in math and science that aren’t the exact same ones / not at the same intensity that the majors take. For example, one might take genetics that prepares one to understand current learnings and controversies in the field, or a good statistics class that has a lot of day to day applicability, instead of differential equations and biochemistry.</p>

399

<p>@PizzaGirl, Perhaps those other schools do suffer from those flaws. But the fact that a significant percentage of people who would appear to have the ability to do the work nevertheless flunk out would seem to indicate otherwise. And personally, I’m willing to give a great deal of credibility to someone who was talented enough to be hired as a faculty member at two different Ivy League schools, regardless of his inability to talk to plumbers.</p>

400

<p>Humanities classes are often thought to be good for developing character, values, good citizenship, an appreciation for one’s own culture as well as others. Whether or not they do is a debate for another day, though I think that there is that potential benefit. Except for specific ethics classes related to STEM subjects, STEM classes do not generally deal with values although certainly many areas of research address issues that involve value judgments. (There is also the value of hard work, tenacity, etc. inherent in going through the rigor of a STEM major.) In addition, as a general proposition, STEM students benefit from being able to write clearly if not artfully. I suspect those are a couple of reason why humanities classes are more generally required than math / science classes.* </p>

<p>However, there are good arguments for math / science literacy for all. As Pizzagirl notes, the content of math / science classes for non-STEM students seeking generalized familiarity with concepts should not necessarily be the same as that for STEM students seeking detailed knowledge of the subject.</p>