<p>History has its place. I don’t think, however,that it is as valuable as most educators believe.Certainly it is very valuable for artists and designers to take courses in art history. It is valuable for engineers to see the results of potential mistakes as with bridge malfunction. </p>
<p>Sadly, whenever I asked why I have to learn three years of history in high school, the pat answer was, “If we don’t learn history, we are doomed to repeat it.” What I have learned since then is that countries and people repeat historical mistakes all the time. Conquerors never seem to apply the lessons learned from the Spartans and Romans. We in the US have rarely been proactive even though we have learned that many problems could have been avoided with proactive responses. Frankly, I would abolish history in high school, as unpopular as it might seem</p>
<p>As for other liberal arts majors, I have very much in favor of not only keeping them but beefing up all majors to include them especially courses in grammar ( unless a kid places out of it), a logic courses, a course in philosophy, at least two english courses and/or literature, one political science course and a semester of economics. I also believe in at least one course in college algebra or statistics or calculus. These requirements would be particularly important for non liberal arts majors such as those in engineering, hard science or business.</p>
<p>I’m certainly not trying to diminish the importance of history - although, I found the reference to Tacoma Narrows. Having taken physics in high school and having completed one year as an engineering student, it is certainly an example one hears about over and over and over again (and for good reasons, too!). However, it is something that is cited as an important example of structural failure in a physics (maybe in conjunction with some discussion of resonant frequencies, etc.) or engineering classes. I’m not sure quite how this relates to the need for history courses - certainly, relevant historical examples are important, but that seems to have little to do with pure history courses. </p>
<p>In any case, I’m not saying history is unimportant, just wondering about the logic behind that example.</p>
<p>Most modern textbooks in science and engineering have a fair amount of
text related to the history of the subject matter so that you have the
flow of how the topic area developed over time and why things may be
done the way they are done. Would you like to spend weeks laboring over
Maxwell’s Equations without knowing anything about Maxwell?</p>
<p>If you were taking an introductory course in chemistry, wouldn’t you
like to know how Ben Franklin was able to figure out the thickness of
a molecule?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>That’s a nice, pat answer but yes, society does often repeat mistakes.</p>
<p>But you don’t have to participate in the downfall if you know it is
coming. So you could benefit personally, even if society as a whole
doesn’t.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I think that most universities require two semesters of writing
(typically college or research writing and a literature course that
involves a lot of writing), and two semesters of calculus. I’ve seen
some schools that will allow the substition of logic or statistics
for one semester of calculus.</p>
<p>I spend lots of time with the kids using a Socratic approach on the
issues of the day or on issues that I feel like talking about and they
cover philosophy, politics, business, ethics, etc. and I try to get
them to think and to learn how they think.</p>
<p>I’m trying to do a little of that here too, with those that think that
the liberal arts should be pushed to the back of the bus. The reaction
that I’ve seen, in those not even interested in the dialogue, is quite
surprising. It seems to be the antithesis of intellectual curiousity.</p>
<p>Okay, let’s talk about pure history courses then.</p>
<p>I watched Margaret Anderson’s History 5 lectures (Berkeley) a few
years ago and it provided me with exposure to art, dates, facts,
figures, etc. But she also provided the historical contexts of why
people and societies did the things that they did; even when they
seemed irrational to us. She shows that politics, personal
self-interests, variances in power and economics, can have powerful
effects on people living in societies.</p>
<p>I think that this discussion, understanding and background can help
the young adult better understand the world that they live in and
maybe even help them navigate their own small spaces better.</p>
<p>"I say “worthless” because these majors teach students to gaze into the past rather than looking into the future. In addition, offering these majors lowers the quality of students at universities (think about all the American Studies or History majors you’ve ever known). We are living in a STEM century and there simply will be no room for liberal arts*** majors. "</p>
<p>Liberal Arts students are taught to learn about the past in order to build the future - they just have to hire a few engineers who work for them.</p>
<p>A year of writing courses is a common requirement, although most courses are writing about fictional literature, rather than a choice of subjects to write about (history, political science, science, etc.).</p>
<p>Calculus as a requirement for all students is nowhere close to universal among four year universities.</p>
<p>Okay, consider KC Johnson, History Professor at Brooklyn College.</p>
<p>He had a profound effect on the Duke Lacrosse case in publicizing the railroading of college students and provided many different historical aspects of similar or the lack of similar cases.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>We are also living in a more politicized world with lots of conflicts around the world where understanding peoples, cultures and politics is more important than ever if we want to live in a peaceful world.</p>
<p>The Duke Lacrosse case shows that patience, the law, the criminal justice and legal systems can be corrupted where STEM really can’t help.</p>
<p>I agree with ucbalumnus’s point about calculus. I think all universities should require differential and integral calculus as core prerequisites - and this is coming from a math-phobic lib arts student, not a bitter STEM major.</p>
<p>I say this because, at my university at least, those two courses are required for pretty much any major outside the liberal arts and communication colleges. So, if the student who comes in undeclared and decides the next year to become an engineer, he’ll at least already have those two prerequisite courses under his belt. </p>
<p>I am wanting to change my major to economics, which requires differential and integral calculus as basic prerequisites before students can take any upper-division economics course, but I’m in a difficult position because 1) I went to a high school that simply did not offer math past college algebra, and calculus courses at my university are notorious as competitive “weed-out” courses that are dominated by STEM majors (so I just wouldn’t be prepared) and 2) I’m already done with my first year and I’ll be abroad/on vacation most of this summer. So now I’m in the awkward position of trying to teach myself pre-calc and calculus and then taking a CLEP course in the fall. I’ve also started looking at grad schools and most MBA programs expect students to have a mastery of basic calculus. </p>
<p>Plus, calculus has immense value as a philosophical discipline. </p>
<p>Students in general just need to be more well-rounded - a college education should equip students both with practical knowledge (for our purposes let’s say a mastery of STEM disciplines) and a working knowledge of humanity, the arts, world affairs. The core curriculum should MEAN something and not just be a checklist. I regret getting so many of my credits through online dual enrollment courses at my CC in which I retained nothing. I made this post because I’m a liberal arts major and I feel deprived of a “true” liberal arts education because I was given the impression by my parents and high school that I didn’t need math and science.</p>
<p>(That said, I completely disagree with EVERYTHING the OP wrote)</p>
<p>Most young children express a natural curiosity about the past. We can respond to this (or any other impulse) in several ways. We can try to:
ignore it,
suppress it,
indulge it, OR
cultivate it</p>
<p>Studying history is a grown-up way to cultivate, and satisfy, our natural curiosity about the past. It is no more or less practical than any other pastime that educated people pursue to make life more satisfying. Building an orderly chronology from solid evidence can be more satisfying than just making stuff up. But, it’s an acquired taste. Many people would rather indulge in hearsay, gossip, myths and legends … or try to ignore the past altogether.</p>
<p>(To ignore what happened before you were born is to remain forever a child - Cicero)</p>
<p>“History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” – often attributed to Mark Twain, though origin uncertain (possibly from John Colombo poem attributing it to Twain)</p>
<p>“If you don’t know history, it’s as if you were born yesterday. If you were born yesterday, then any leader can tell you anything.” – Howard Zinn</p>
<p>People who know nothing of history are far easier to manipulate by politicians, business people, and others. Often individuals are asked to “buy” an idea or a type of product that has been “sold” before, possibly in many places at many times in history, and the results or outcomes of such purchases may have been quite similar regardless of the time or place. Patterns one can discern from history put modern events, actors, and actions in a different context, a broader context. The knowledge of history allows the individual to see social events with different eyes, from a greater distance.</p>
<p>OP: Put on a Beatle’s record and chill. Sit by a roaring fire on a winter’s night and read a Robert Frost poem. Seek out a famous painting at an obscure museum and just stare at for twenty minutes.</p>
<p>My personal experiences include all of the above. They also include logging into facebook to find a posting by my creative writing major daughter while she was spending a semester in Ireland. She visited an ancient site and was inspired to write a poem about it. All the money in the world can’t buy that. I’d post the poem, but now that she’s persuing her MFA in poetry, she thinks her early work is sophmoric Plus, I really don’t think you’d appreciate it. It’s all about visceral reactions to history, geology, religion, art, nature, biology, botany, and respect for the dead. You know, all that worthless stuff. No math.</p>
<p>I would argue that rather than calculus, statistics should be universal. Far too many people have no grasp of probability, margin of error, graphical representations (and misrepresentations) of data, etc.</p>
<p>I find that my D’s friends that are of Asian backgrounds (including India) really don’t see the value of a liberal arts education. They are very STEM focused. Not sure if this across the board, but just my observation.</p>
<p>I haven’t read this whole thread, but I’m reminded of John Adams:</p>
<p>I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.</p>
<p>Or is it more due to economic background? Someone from a lower economic class background, for whom student loan debt looks huge, may be more “careerist” in motivation to study for a bachelor’s degree.</p>
<p>not bad, antip (you still there, btw?). since you last posted (#16) your thread propagated 123 more hits and counting. but you know, it’s really a cheap shot dredging up this issue about lib arts being obsolete, if not irrelevant. the nerve has been hit so many times it’s just no fun anymore reading these parental knee-jerk denials, that it’s all justified in the name of critical thinking. no matter. the issue will resolve itself sooner than later as the money - both governments’ and parents’ - runs out for supporting education that just doesn’t pay its way. no more buck rogers at nasa, no more african literature at berkeley.</p>
<p>Ucbalumnus the Asian kids aren’t the lower income careerists, I’m Indian and I’m doing business but most of my indian/azn friends are doing STEM bc thats what they are interested in/good at. And yeah it makes them more employable but that has nothing to do with family income, most are upper middle class </p>