<p>Problem: colleges are expensive to run. As I said before and I will say again, I think well-rounded should have happened in high school.</p>
<p>futurenyustudent, it appears that most of Europe agrees with you :)</p>
<p>futurenyustudent,</p>
<p>I was being sarcastic.</p>
<p>I think "well-rounded" should also happen in college-the undergraduate years.</p>
<p>It allows people on the outside to assign your degree from XYZ school some level of competence and ability. Getting a degree means you passed the gen ed req's. Take for example Caltech. Everyone there has taken Quantum Mechanics. A degree from Caltech certifies that you passed through Quantum Mechanics.</p>
<p>Obviously there must be a good reason for colleges to keep GIR's. Generally professors are a good deal smarter than you; maybe you should go ask them why your college has GIR's.</p>
<p>There are specialized schools that do not have many general education requirements. The usual community college tries to prepare a student for matriculation to a 4 year school. Since many colleges do have general ed requirements, comm college offers these courses. Also it allows them to offer an array of courses at a level that does not go into the junior and senior years. It allows the student to gain some degree of proficiency and knowledge in different disciplines and to sample intro courses in them. I know many kids who changed a major or went into a field because they liked an intro level course they took that would not have been their choice had it not been required.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Problem: colleges are expensive to run. As I said before and I will say again, I think well-rounded should have happened in high school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But not all high schools are equal. If you're some rich kid that went to a private school that coddled your every whim, then you're probably going to have been exposed to a variety of intellectual pursuits. But if you came from a bare-bones public school, college can be the time to try out all those activities that were never offered to you in high school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But not all high schools are equal. If you're some rich kid that went to a private school that coddled your every whim, then you're probably going to have been exposed to a variety of intellectual pursuits. But if you came from a bare-bones public school, college can be the time to try out all those activities that were never offered to you in high school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Precisely the reason I'm advocating TAILORING to the student. If you went to a private school that coddled your every whim (and probably tailored a high school curriculum for you based on your interests to some extent), and you've had a solid exposure to a variety of intellectual pursuits, you should be able to specialize earlier if you want to. I'd say get rid of NCLB, and use that money to fund a national vouchers system. Works perfectly well in Belgium.</p>
<p>Well, there are schools without general education requirements, many of which have solid academic reputations like Brown. I do agree that too few schools offer it. But ultimately, you as a student are a consumer, and can vote with your dollars. If you consider gen ed requirements to be burdensome, then either go to a college that lacks any here, or to a European school. Personally, much as I hate gen ed requirements, and find that they impede my ability to get a targeted education in the humanities and social sciences, it wasn't a deal breaker for me. Heavy gen eds were, but more relaxed ones were tolerable in my mind. Surely you made a similar calculation, or are going so since NYU has fairly extensive ones.</p>
<p>If you don't want requirements go to a school where there aren't any. Some people want core curriculums.</p>
<p>that's a terrible piece of advice. now, I don't really mind the whole distribution requirements thing (in fact I will be done with those requirements by the end of my sophomore year, just because there's so many classes in other departments that interest me) but at the same time, it's exceptionally idealistic to think that students will actually broaden their knowledge if you force them to take other classes. I know a lot of people who take classes with extremely easy reputations to fulfill distribution requirements - while people who actually learn something valuable from those other courses would generally have taken those courses without being forced to in the first place. (like me, for instance - I've taken 2 linguistics courses because they interest me, 2 Russian courses for the same reason, and adding AP credits, there go my requirements!).</p>
<p>It depends on the school.</p>
<p>I can see why some elite private institutions have general eds (and they have merit for forcing general eds onto students). Since most privates usually don't offer as many courses as publics (and since they don't have many "n00b-level" classes, it's easier to get students to actually expose themselves to particular courses that actually have requirements). Privates also tend to have self-select applicant pools, so they tend to have a general idea of what their students often lack (whereas publics are more hetereogeneous)</p>
<p>For state schools though, many people try to find ways to get around their general eds, which can be fulfilled by many classes (they take the easiest ones available, they skip their classes, etc..). While it may do some good for some people, it's hard to guesstimate how much good it does for them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you can blame the left for the gen eds.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lmao</p>
<p>one college cannot create different degree requirements for 3000, 8000, 15000, 30000 students.</p>
<p>I highly doubt every cal tech grad does modern physics</p>
<p>
[quote]
one college cannot create different degree requirements for 3000, 8000, 15000, 30000 students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not talking about tailoring each student's education. That would be a logistical nightmare, although at a tiny school like Sarah Lawrence or Wesleyan, it's very possible. By the way, Wes has a "recommended" gen-ed track that is in no way required. I'm talking about two tracks-major track and gen-ed-major track (let's give the colleges discretion to name those...). The major track would entail very light gen ed requirements, and the gen ed track would entail heavier emphasis on gen ed.</p>
<p>Of course, if the students are smart enough, they "tailor" their own educations anyway. I'm simply asking to make that systematic.</p>
<p>my D is also a polysci major at a school with a core curriculum...she took a course in Music History- a very hard course at her school...and she LOVED it!!! </p>
<p>If you are studying political science, you need to learn about others, the world, nature, all of it</p>
<p>What, you just want to study WHAT exactly? How boring would the world be if engineers just studied math and science, or english majors didn't study the environment</p>
<p>Be grateful you are learning about the world and not so narrow minded</p>
<p>My D has a friend who is taking one english class and two science classes with labs- she wants to become a dentists NOW, but there is a very good chance she will change her mind, statistically speaking, and then what will she have lots of science....</p>
<p>There is something wonderful about learning Shakespaere, astronomy, poertry</p>
<p>Look at the Ivys- they have followed the idea, generally, of a well rounded education</p>
<p>They must have thought that valuable</p>
<p>Colleges are fairly clear about any gen ed or "core" requirements on their websites and in their admissions materials, so if you don't want the spend your first two years taking classes that meet the core requirement, go to a school that doesn't have any. It's kind of a waste of time to complain about it after the fact.</p>
<p>I just picked up my son at the train station for his first visit home this semester. He was upbeat and eager to tell me about his courses so far. He just declared his major, which is not exactly the one he intended going in (he originally planned a double major). He'll take the first course toward his major this semester (second semester, soph year), an intro course. The rest of his schedule is more Spanish, Music History, Philosophy and Astronomy. He says he's eager to get into his major courses, but he likes learning about subjects he'd never have taken w/o the core requirement. He's taking a science course now (he's not a science major), and the prof gave him an excellent grade on a paper and told the class that it was the best example of a college paper he'd seen yet. So he got a huge boost to his ego for work he's doing in a class that wouldn't have been on his radar without the core. </p>
<p>He also said most of his friends appreciated not having to declare a major before the end of soph year because so many of them changed their minds. The kids in the business school and pre-med have to declare coming in, but the liberal arts kids get to explore a bit. </p>
<p>Some kids soak up the core, others hate it and want to get on with their major w/o gen ed requirements. My advice is to do your research the schools required courses BEFORE you apply.</p>
<p>I don't know what you are referring to with "modern physics" but if you mean quantum mechanics, as previously mentioned, then yes that is a requirement for all Caltech students.</p>
<p>Here is the Caltech core: Caltech</a> Undergraduate Admissions: Core Curriculum</p>
<p>As you can see, it is very intense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gen eds are both a waste of my money and time.</p>
<p>"Gen eds are both a waste of my money and time."</p>
<p>Hahaha... yes I'm laughing at you wasting your time, not with you.</p>
<p>I think you should tell your university you don't want to take the GIR's. And if they say no, you should throw a tantrum. Make sure you're loud and roll around on the floor.</p>
<p>I'm torn between the two points of view.</p>
<p>One part of me definitely sees where the anti-GE people are coming from. If you know what you want to do, why do other stuff? A lot of the "X factor" can be picked up in major-related classes, regardless of what anybody tells you. Plus, you'll have friends and acquaintances outside your major, so it's not far-fetched to believe you will learn interpersonal skills one way or the other.</p>
<p>The other part of me says that the continuation of GE into the undergraduate curriculum is a good thing. Probably the most important reason it's important isn't that it's "good to be well rounded"; different subjects force you to think in different ways. It's like exercise for the brain. Imagine lifting weights with only one arm versus lifting weights with both. You may favor your right arm a bit, but you probably want both arms to at least be useable.</p>
<p>I assume a compromise would have to be reached. Of course, that's what's already happened... the system exists as it does so that GE and technical courses are in the generally-agreed-upon balance. I know for certain that I don't want the American system to turn into the European system. That would be a sad day for American education.</p>
<p>And BTW, I sincerely doubt that every student at CalTech has to take Quantum Mechanics for a GE requirement. Maybe "A Survey of Modern Science", or something, or even "A Survey of Quantum Theory"... but most people can't, and don't need to, understand that stuff.</p>