<p>Or to catch the next new episode of “The Big Bang Theory.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and to see the absurdity of it all.;)</p>
<p>Before I kill off another thread with my acid tongue, I will leave you all with this quote from Lord Snows Rede Lecture, given in Cambridge, 1959:</p>
<p>*A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is about the scientific equivalent of: ‘Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s?’</p>
<p>I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, ‘Can you read?’ not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their Neolithic ancestors would have had.
*</p>
<p>Things have not changed much, have they? </p>
<p>It has been fun, folks.</p>
<p>Oh, my goodness, Canuckguy, your quote reminds me of my Dad’s wake. The head of a prestigious NYC law firm (Rhodes scholar), a senior partner in a prestigious NYC consulting firm (yeah, them), and a highly placed European investment banker were listening to me with an air of incredulity as I tried to explain a key concept about gravity - that in the absence of air resistance, objects fall at the same speed. The conversation started when they were talking about indoor skiing in Dubai (gee, I wish). It ended with me referring them to the link of the Apollo footage of an astronaut dropping a wrench and a feather on the moon and them hitting at the same time!</p>
<p>Later on in another conversation, I tried explaining about how electric or hydrogen cars didn’t use “clean” energy if the power plants used to obtain the electricity or electrolyze water (to obtain hydrogen) were coal powered. AAAArrrgggghhhhh!!! This stuff MATTERS!!!</p>
<p>162: An acid tongue attacking base scientific educations - seems appropriate. </p>
<p>163: Perhaps the scientific discussion at the wake did not have sufficient gravity for the occasion, or perhaps their confusion stemmed from being drowsy at the wake. </p>
<p>151: Some people whose gifts go toward letters rather than numbers should probably center their core studies around words rather than equations. The study of language and writing seems more than mere scenery to me. I am not sure the destination would be worth reaching if it lacked the scenery. A significant part of evolving technology involves the spreading of creative, artistic, and political ideas to ever wider audiences.</p>
<p>For everyone arguing this thread, here is a question:</p>
<p>What subjects do you think a student studying toward a bachelor’s degree, regardless of major, should include in his/her course selection to get a well rounded liberal arts education?</p>
<p>Physics, biology, math (calc and stats), philosophy (logic, ethics, history of philo) , English lit, history (European and American) , economics, foreign language. </p>
<p>Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using CC App</p>
<p>Add music and art</p>
<p>Most schools now seem to require at least one course that involves a culture that is not centered in Europe or America. When I was in school, they taught Western history and quite a few professors were proud of excluding the rest of the world from consideration, even as we were going into Vietnam.</p>
<p>Annasdad: That looks pretty good except for the exclusion of Asian history. Shouldn’t chemistry be in there too? </p>
<p>Even without those, I agree that your proposal would be well-rounded. However, what level of proficiency should a college student attain in these subject? Should they be required to pass comprehensive exams in all subjects before graduation? Is learning those subjects at a 4 or 5 AP level in high school sufficient? Should a truly well-rounded student also demonstrate some level of physical fitness as well - rather than my kind of well-roundedness. Even taking calculus as a freshman seems more for show than for any sort of real benefit - if the non - STEM student takes no more math for the next three years, then I doubt that person really knows calculus when he / she graduates. </p>
<p>As for English Lit, what books should every educated person study? Do math majors need to dive into “Ulysses” and “Moby Dick.” How much Shakespeare should educated persons know? Math is quantified into “calc and Stats,” but what is a comparable level of writing skill? Mathematicians and scientists need to be able to write clearly to communicate their ideas to others. Writers do not need to know calculus, stats, physics, etc unless they are writing about those specific subjects. Your proposed curriculum seems desirable, but not necessary. </p>
<p>Also, what level of proficiency should an educated person maintain? “I don’t know much about the science books / I don’t know much about the French I took.” Exposure to a wide variety of subjects is probably a good thing, but retention of knowledge decades later is a problem when one’s field has nothing to do with many subjects - at least it is for me. I can’t read music anymore and cannot read French without a dictionary and a great deal of patience. If that is the case, how much energy should be spent in college becoming “well-rounded”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Being able to understand the difference between something (like number of a given type of job) and its rate of change (like growth in the number of a given type of job) is something that can help a lot of people avoid being confused or misled, even if they do not remember how to integrate some obscure function.</p>
<p>As far as what a well rounded liberal arts education should include, the subjects that are most important in helping one learn other subjects are:</p>
<p>Reading/research/writing/communication: preferably courses using varied topics. It would be desirable for a student to be able to communicate about his/her major subject both to others in the field and to general audiences with no special knowledge of the subject.</p>
<p>Quantitative/logical thinking: calculus, statistics, logic (philosophy department course or math with proofs).</p>
<p>Of course, other subjects would also be included, but they may be more controversial. For example, if history is required, should specific history subjects (e.g. US history, European history, Asian history, modern history, ancient history, etc.) be required, and, if so, which ones? Also, a non-science major looking to take a worthwhile science course may find the current choices to be either multi-semester sequences for majors or joke courses of the “physics for poets” or “rocks for jocks” type.</p>
<p>Can’t one read history books at home? Do they need to be taught?</p>
<p>What is typically taught in history classes in this country at the more selective and rigorous schools(don’t know about elsewhere) is not the “story” or “factoids” of particular historical events alone (although these form a basis) but how the stories are put together (which primary sources are used, and which ignored, for instance.) Someone who has taken this type of class might continue to read history on their own, but might be expected to pay more attention to footnotes and bibliographies than someone without this type of training.</p>
<p>Presumably, professors who have studied a field for years and are used to developing their perspective after examining both primary and secondary sources and defending their conclusions in front of critical colleagues will have more of this type of expertise than the random reviewer on Amazon.</p>
<p>Whether it is important for someone who programs computers or designs electrical circuits (which some of our students ALSO learn on their own) to be aware of the details of their own country’s recent and distant history, or that of other countries, and how it is being written and spun for mass consumption, is another matter entirely, I suppose.</p>
<p>I am not convinced that someone’s interpretation or competing versions of history or foot note reviews are relevant. However, understanding the impact of dark ages, holocaust, ramifications of world wars, etc are important to know in terms how things progressed the way the did that led to those events.</p>
<p>If one were to ask to an old Indian on a reservation, his/her version of US history would be lot different from what is currently interpreted as US History.</p>
<p>These days, almost everything can be taught at home. The Khan Institute teaches math beyond calculus, economics, and other subjects on line. The Teaching Company has lectures on virtually every subject. Many universities have courses online through Apple University, etc. However, for many students, there is a benefit in personal interaction with a well-qualified professor and intelligent peers. As far as teaching, the only subjects that require brick and mortar are sciences labs, and art and music studios - and some ambitious and wealthy people can probably handle the art and music studios at home too. </p>
<p>While I can see education moving toward independent study for autodidactic polymaths who simply test their way through higher education without ever seeing a classroom, I wonder about the social costs of such isolation. Where an excellent education is available to all at home for far less than tuition, room and board, college could become the place where elites who can afford it make connections. Experts can be found by looking for those who test well in certain subjects.</p>
<p>As frazzled2thecore pointed out, to read a book is not to understand it. Being widely read is no guarantee that one is well-educated. Attitude and approach to intellectual pursuits probably plays a significant role in whether one truly becomes well-educated, or merely an awesome trivial pursuit contestant. The latter might be well-educated, or might simply be able to recall a lot of facts without much understanding of what they signify or of their context.</p>
<p>ucbalumnus:</p>
<p>Your outline of a curriculum looks like a reasonable approach. Undergraduate programs should require courses designed to improve communication through writing (and perhaps speech), quantitative reasoning, and qualitative analysis. While I don’t believe education should be a tool for government propaganda, I agree with the ancient Greek notion of education being used to promote good citizenship as well. Therefore, I think that U.S. history, government, and politics, and world history, should be part of the curriculum.</p>