<p>Just a forum for discussion: would college be better if people only had to take classes that were relevant to their degree? </p>
1 Like
<p>I feel as if college is a place to not only become educated in one’s chosen field, but to become a well-rounded individual exposed to many different types of people and areas of interest. Many students enter college as undeclared, or end up changing their majors after a time. We always encouraged our kids to use their electives to try a a class outside of their comfort zone, and I think that sometimes students find an area of new interest by doing that. If students only took classes relevant to their degrees, we would end up, for instance, with a bunch of engineers who would never mix with artists or writers- people with whom they may eventually have to work with after graduation. It would limit their college experiences to dealing only with a group of very analytical, logical people who may not be representative of the “real world”. There are trade schools for people who want to focus on one area only and they definitely have a place in education, but I think many employers prefer to have a graduate who has interacted with a variety of areas of interest and is a well-rounded individual.</p>
<p>I believe I benefited from a broad based education in both the arts and sciences, and I ended up as a dual major with one in arts and one in science. I feel I am a better educated person for that. I feel my future interests have been helped by such an education.</p>
<p>That said, my parents paid for the cost of such an education, which took longer than 4 years for me. I completely understand if some people feel that they can’t afford that, and want a more focused education. We should have options for both. JMHO.</p>
<p>There are European universities for people who want to focus on one subject only, but what if you discover that you actually hate the field that you chose to major in? Plus, it does seem that American colleges tend to generate more creative/entrepreneurial grads. For sure, part of the reason why is because our societal superstructure is set up to reward that, but part may be due to the more well-rounded education that American college grads tend to receive.</p>
1 Like
<p>The cost and time to get the degree is what I’ve thought about. For one thing, the “well roundedness” only works one way. Engineering majors need to take arts classes, such as music appreciation and history, but history majors don’t need to take, say, physics and advanced math classes. English classes are good general eds, because everyone should know how to read and write effectively, but the humanities courses are what seem silly to me if you’re not going into that kind of thing. A lot of kids have things like world history and U.S. history in high school, so why repeat those things is my thought. </p>
<p>Some colleges, and their students, apparently believe so: Brown, Amherst, Evergreen State.</p>
<p>But ABET accreditation requirements mean that Brown students in ABET-accredited engineering majors do have to take some H/SS courses (though fewer than at most other schools).</p>
<p>Also, many schools’ GE requirements do not specify much in the way of specific courses. E.g. you do not have to take US history for an H/SS requirement – you can take something else.</p>
<p>It is true that GE requirements in science and math for H/SS and business majors tend to be less extensive than GE requirements in H/SS for science, math, and engineering majors. (MIT is an exception here.)</p>
<p>I was merely using history as an example; I’m sure there are other courses depending on the school. This is just hypothetical, I know ABET isn’t going to change its requirements anytime soon. </p>
<p>I don’t think I want to live in a world where all the college grads have only taken classes in or directly related to their major. I’m glad that my math and chemE kids can have an intelligent conversation about the French Revolution or British Literature.</p>
<p>There was a brilliant article i read somewhere a while ago on why humanities courses should be taken by every student, how it boosts innovation. I definitely understand (as a future bio student) why many science students may feel those classes are just chores, but I can also see how helpful some of them can be. The humanities, imo, are so integral to significant intersocial development. English and History aside, i believe college humanities courses offer something that you cannot find in a high school setting.</p>
<p>That is awesome, @mom2collegekids, but the thing is, couldn’t it work the other way too? Shouldn’t arts and humanities graduates also be able to talk about technology and math? </p>
<p>I helped design the current GE program at the school where I teach. So in principle, I support GE. There are many schools that do a good job with it, and I will continue to support GE at those schools.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, a lot of schools do it BADLY. Here are trends I’ve seen around the country that bug me (individual schools are seldom guilty of all of them):</p>
<ul>
<li>Most GE classes are first-year classes designed for majors</li>
<li>Most GE classes are watered-down versions of classes designed for majors</li>
<li>Most GE requirements can be satisfied by a big lecture course with easy multiple choice tests</li>
<li>There is no discernible GE program; there is only a list of options</li>
<li>Beyond the usual “well-rounded” language, no attempt is made to show students how their GE courses contribute to their education</li>
</ul>
<p>GE reform is under way at a lot of schools, and many are specifically targeting the stuff in my list. But a lot of these schools are really just dressing up their old requirements without making any real improvements.</p>
<p>I often wonder if we would be better off with a two-tiered system of bachelor degrees: one in which students specialize, and one that is essentially a good version of what we’re doing now.</p>
<p>DS will not have the credits needed to skip much of the coursework like many on here seem to be able to do. In some cases, up to a year’s worth.</p>
<p>So why test out of these classes if they are so valuable in your college career?</p>
<p>I would rather my son have more time to concentrate on a very difficult major; the gen ed’s just become a chore that needs to be overcome</p>
<p>Exactly, @laralei, that is what I have seen happen to students (older kids I know going through college.) It’s like, okay, I have to take another general ed course, I’ll just try to BS my way through this with as little effort as possible to still get a good grade, all the while trying to really focus on the courses they are interested in. </p>
<p>Serious question; if we didn’t have gen eds, how would majors like geology, geography, philosophy, and a whole host of other subjects which students have at best minimal exposure to in high school, recruit undergraduates? I know that the vast majority of geology majors at my school did not start out as geology majors. Rather they switched after getting real exposure to the subject via gen eds.</p>
<p>I don’t really know. Is that really how the majority of the people the go into those majors find out about them, through general eds?</p>
<p>There are some Canadian universities that require little to no breadth (or general ed) requirements. My old university, the University of Toronto required only 1 credit out of 20 (20 is the minimum amount of credits required for a bachelors degree, each one semester course is 0.5 credits) to be outside your focus (ie. science students had to take half a credit of social science and half of humanities, in any department they wanted, which means tthat pretty much any course will satisfy these requremnts). If you have a kid that knows what they are passionate about and wants to focus on that then a university without a lot of general ed requirements might be a good fit. However there are plenty of students who aren’t sure what they want to be spending the next four years studying so general eds can be useful for them to help discover what they want to study.</p>
<p>Well, if time and cost are the issue (and you really don’t care about them), Gen Ed credit can be gotten through AP/IB/CLEP/CC credit at many schools. And if the kid can’t pick up those credits, it hard to argue that skipping those classes would be good for them.</p>
<p>
Why would it be unreasonable to require a history major to have a basic understanding of the physical sciences? As society becomes more technologically advanced, this should become fundamental knowledge of any educated person. I would really like to see a physical sciences version of English 101 required of all students. </p>
<p>Where are y’all sending your kids to college that has no science or math requirement for all students? Yes, history and English majors generally need a lab science and an math course! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IMHO, that limits the education of history majors and should be changed.</p>