<p>The other day my D asked If I know what I want to major in, why do I still have to take all these core classes? I gave her the standard well-rounded-education speech.</p>
<p>This was brought up because she has a friend living in Brazil and there, if they know what they will major in - after some testing to insure basic knowledge - they go right into their major courses. If they do not know, then there is exploration-type classes required. </p>
<p>It got me wondering about the benefits for some students. If they <em>really</em> do know what they want to do wouldnt it be better to allow them to focus their studies? And wouldnt it cut down on the length of time and therefore overall cost/debt of a degree?</p>
<p>Or would the administration of customized degrees (I know some smaller LACs have flexible curriculum), the additional class offerings and the extra need for advisement be too much to ask and therefore raise costs? </p>
<p>I was one of those students who liked to learn all sorts of things, so I didnt mind taking classes that really didnt support my career aspirations. But my S narrowed down majors specifically based on how many math-cores were required.</p>
<p>Just wondering how others felt about this especially if you are hiring-types: Would it make a difference to you when hiring new grads?</p>
<p>(Im sure this has been talked about before but a quick search didnt turn up much, so feel free to include redirects to other posts)</p>
<p>This is one of our pet peeves. My son’s Catholic school requires 39 credits, which includes several philosophy and theology classes. He is only able to take two elective classes during his entire college career, as all the other classes are required for his major. </p>
<p>Daughter is considering another school, and I was happy to learn that only 33 credits are required there.</p>
<p>I also think the gen ed core is a drawback for a lot of students who would otherwise go and get their degree in something specific but who may flounder in classes that don’t seem to be applicable. I was not a fan of the core classes and I wasn’t even sure what I wanted to study but I would have preferred more flexibility over electives if they just wanted classes outside my major. As it was I started out at a LAC that had a certain number of required history classes regardless of major, I later took time off and went back to another school and when determining what I needed for my major realized if I took one more history class I would have a minor So I have a minor in history that is only due to gen ed reqs. I also know I got absolutely nothing out of my req religion and philosophy classes. My D knows hands down what she wants to do but she is looking forward to having some classes outside her major as a way to pick some other things she is interested in and include those but we are steering clear of those places that have specific requirements that aren’t what she is looking for.</p>
<p>I also think gen ed reqs are a drawback for students coming back to school as older students, usually with jobs or families, etc. Usually at that stage you want to get in/get out with the degree and resent those extraneous courses. At least I know I did.</p>
<p>I had a discussion with someone from Europe (former professor). In his program, he went straight into his technical courses which saved him a fair amount of time in getting to his Phd. I made the case that there are things in a liberal education that can be useful down the road of life. He talked about the costs of that knowledge. He said that a liberal arts degree is for the wealthy that can afford the time and money. In many cases, a masters degree is required to provide sufficient knowledge for a profession.</p>
<p>This is one of our pet peeves. My son’s Catholic school requires 39 credits, which includes several philosophy and theology classes. He is only able to take two elective classes during his entire college career, as all the other classes are required for his major.</p>
<p>Is he majoring in engineering? If so, this kind of happens even at some publics. My son is an engineering major and I don’t think he has room in his schedule for any electives…even tho he came in with AP credits! He’s going to take a class this summer and that also won’t be an elective…it will be course that satisfies an upper division writing req’t.</p>
<p>It depends on the extent of the core. It’s possible to go too far, obviously.</p>
<p>I think some well-roundedness is useful because the world is interdisciplinary and because some of those fields have skills that might be useful to you in your own. I think it’s good, on the whole, for scientists and engineers to take a few writing-intensive humanities classes, and for humanities majors to have quantitative skills. I also thought, being at a tech school with a heavy science core, that it was good for us to understand the basics of the major fields of science - for a mechanical engineer to take a biology class, for instance, or a bio major to take physics - because it expands the range of subfields open to you.</p>
<p>In Germany university students have had 13 years of schooling - so in many ways they already have gotten that general education. There are schools with generous AP credit policies. My son at Carnegie Mellon had to take 1 writing course, 1 technical writing course, 1 world history course and 1 more social science type course (psych/philosophy I think). Every single other course he’s taken has been in his major (comp sci) or his minor (physics). Sometimes I’m appalled, and sometimes I just tell myself he’s getting a European style education. I think he got pretty well educated in high school and I’m not sure that taking a few more gen ed courses would have made his conversation any more scintillating.</p>
<p>I agree that some core courses are important. But others are a waste of time (and therefore money). For example, one of D1’s required courses was a literature / writing course. She’s a math/science geek, and would not opt for a lit course unless required. I think the exposure to books she would not have read was good, and the writing portion of the class helped her become a better writer. So that requirement went towards making D1 a more-rounded person.</p>
<p>However, she also has an art requirement. She can’t draw or paint, and the “art appreciation” courses take too much time (visits to museums, etc); time that she doesn’t have because she is an athlete. Therefore he is fulfilling her art requirement by taking “Photography 1”. She’s not learning anything new…it’s a repeat of her photography class from high school. If she didn’t have the art requirement, she would have taken a math class.</p>
<p>I have been looking for schools with low core requirements, as D is very self-directed and focused, anxious to dig deep into what fascinates her…and irremediably incompetent at some things! If the core courses were taught with energy and inspiration, that would be great for many people-- but too often they are simply requirements to be gotten through, leading to big classes with lackluster teachers and a great number of students who don’t much care. I’d love to see a thread just on schools with low or flexible core requirements. (There are the usual suspects who have none-- Brown, Hampshire, etc.)</p>
<p>I DO think everyone needs to know how to write well, and that since we don’t seem to teach that in High school in the US, it needs to be addressed at the college level.</p>
<p>The problem in taking classes in only your chosen path is that sometimes (often) you’ll never learn about the other paths available which may very well have become your chosen path, if only you had known.</p>
<p>For example, my father entered college with the idea of studying to become an engineer. He had spent most of his military career in electronics and wanted to become an electrical engineer.</p>
<p>He had to take a biology class with a lab to fulfill a GE requirement. He chose a microbiology class, absolutely loved it and went on to get a Ph.D in microbiology. </p>
<p>Sometimes it is good to force people out of their comfort zone and make them sample the buffet.</p>
<p>I used to think about this point. If a student is going into a professional/technical field then I too have wondered why the gen ed. But it dawned on me that the assumption is that these grads will want to move up in their companies or enter a leadership program in a large company…perhaps with the thought that one day they won’t be a specialist/professional/technical grade employee. That leap from specialist to manager, director, or cross functional trianing that occurs in a leadership program etc. requires a skill set that encompasses interpersonal skills, knowledge of finance, writing skills, conversational skills, perhaps world culture in a global company environment etc. Those are the fundamentals that are often interwoven into more general classes. Even docs these days are much more involved in large practices, corporate aquisitions and the general business of their practices than decades ago. I’m now all for higher education spitting out well rounded individuals. I also think there are avenues (colleges and unis) that allow kids to focus as a specialist/professional/technical which is also just fine as there are plenty of people who love what they do and aren’t aspiring to do something different. But I will say that many, many people change careers along the way to retirement or majors during college and a good solid gen ed foundation is never detrimental for those folks.</p>
<p>No, he is a physician assistant major. He’d like to apply to med school, but that would involve squeezing in 4 classes, which is next to impossible. A few Spanish classes are also on his list of desired classes. But he will be able to discuss:</p>
<p>What is the nature of the mind? Do we have free will? How can we know anythng at all? Why am I on this earth?</p>
<ol>
<li>As some posters have said, in Europe, university-bound students have had 13 years of schooling. This is why UK students who have the appropriate number of A-levels, French students who have the Bac, German students who have the Arbitur are all eligible for Advanced Standing at the top American universities. In other words, American college freshmen are working at the level of high school seniors in Europe.</li>
<li>American universities are far more flexible about letting students switch majors and letting students with unconventional majors go on to grad programs, such as American history majors being admitted to medical school, anthropology majors to law school, etc… (note that in France, medicine and law are undergraduate majors). </li>
<li>the ability to mix courses in one major with others outside the major help shape the multi-disciplinary approach to research which many European universities are trying to introduce.</li>
</ol>
<p>I read some years ago that outside the US (Europe?) students on average learn 60% new material every year in K-12 equivalent, while inside the US the average is 60% old material regurgitated each year. Additionally our 180 days per year of classroom work, vice 240-ish elsewhere, our six hour school day, and the latest ‘cost-saving measure’ of no school on Fridays, are not conducive to education efficiency.</p>
<p>I am a great fan of liberal arts education and core requirements. I was a math/econ major at our small LAC. Thirty years later, two courses stuck in my mind - Philosophy & Religion, Music history (or name that tune). If they weren’t required I would never have taken those courses. I didn’t get very good grades in P&R, but as an atheist from an Eastern cultural, it gave me an insight into Western religion and I enjoyed it very much. In the music class I got an A+ because I had very good ears and I could name many symphonies.</p>
<p>D1 is also a math/econ major, but because of humanities requirements she found interest in gender studies (now it’s a minor for her) and she art hitory course.</p>
<p>I am beginning to think they are just to weed out the students with learning disabilities. It’s one of THOSE kinds of days. (I am mostly joking, just to be clear.) You wouldn’t believe the war it has been just to get through my gen eds so I can take the classes in my major, which I am actually okay at. My degree is two thirds completely unrelated courses, and one third in my major. I think there are huge benefits to core requirements, but this is absurd. I am paying 25k a year, and pretty much only a semester and a half of that are remotely relevant to my field.</p>
<p>I like the idea of a liberal arts education as well and did find several courses that I took useful in later life (not necessarily for work). The issues is time and cost. If time and cost aren’t issues, then why not? But for most, time and cost are issues.</p>
<p>In the current economy, skills can be more marketable than being well-rounded, at least in getting that first job. The thing is that there may never be enough time available to take those other courses until the kids are gone.</p>
<p>I have to deal with this with both kids. The son that thinks that humanities are worthless and the daughter that isn’t interested in quantitative courses. They have some nice arguments between them.</p>
<p>I think it’s part of the beauty of American higher ed that there are different schools with different requirements; we benefit from all of them. Some like the idea of a full, well-rounded college education, some just want to do their major. We have choices that some other countries don’t have.</p>
<p>It is entirely my personal opinion, but I think we have just passed through an employment period where specialization was king…get me a software engineer, get me a finance MBA, get me someone with supply chain experience in widgets etc. etc. and as the workforce contracts and the lines soften as people are required to pick up more we will enter a period where the person with a broader perspective/skill set/ability to move/ability to transition quickly around an organization, will become more important and not less important.</p>
(I am mostly joking, just to be clear.) You wouldn’t believe the war it has been just to get through my gen eds so I can take the classes in my major, which I am actually okay at. My degree is two thirds completely unrelated courses, and one third in my major. I think there are huge benefits to core requirements, but this is absurd. I am paying 25k a year, and pretty much only a semester and a half of that are remotely relevant to my field.</p>