<p>I would not be surprised if there are math majors who find math courses to be relatively low workload compared to many history courses, particularly if the history courses involved voluminous amounts of reading or large term projects (although it should be noted that one page of reading in an advanced math book may take as much time as dozens of pages of reading in some other subjects, so pages of reading is not necessarily an accurate indicator of workload). After all, if your favorite subject is math, it is probably easier for you than most other subjects.</p>
<p>Of course, many history majors would be completely lost in more advanced math courses, since history majors (other than those at places like MIT) typically have minimal math general education requirements.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ethics courses should not be trying to impose a specific set of ethics on you. Their intent is to get you to think about both your and othersā ethical systems so that you understand their assumptions and conclusions.</p>
<p>Why is it when STEM kids find it so hard and challenging to take a Humanities class,it is okay, yet they ridicule humanities kids that struggle in a STEM class?</p>
Math courses were never low workload for D1, but the semester she took art history she spent 50% of her time on that course to get a B. Most students in that class were art history majors, they were used to the professorās teaching and testing requirements. D1 struggled to memorize all of those paintings. As hard as the class was for D1, it turned out to be one of her favorite classes in college. Next time we went to Paris, she was our tour guide at Musee dāOrsay.</p>
<p>D2 is a humanities student. She recently took an art history course while in London, which she passed with flying color. She took macro econ as a freshman and got the only B+ in her college career. She still has not forgiven me for making her take that class. </p>
<p>Both D1 and D2 appreciate each otherās strength. It is interesting we got one of each.</p>
<p>Also, you donāt seem to know much about what studying philosophy entails. Thereās a reason why thereās a decent amount of overlap between math, CS, and philosophy (and music, not music appreciation; I donāt know of anyone who majors in music appreciation).</p>
<p>The question isnāt necessarily are there any schools that require STEM majors to take advanced humanities courses, but is it the norm to have lopsided requirements (i.e. do they require STEM majors to take more advanced humanities courses, while humanities majors arenāt required to take advanced STEM courses, which is what one poster was suggesting)? UC Berkeley is a good example of this since it seems like Engineering majors are required to take two upper division humanities/arts/social studies courses, while students in the College of Letters and Sciences are required to take introductory biological and physical science programs. But of course, there are many counterexamples. </p>
<p>In my opinion, MIT and Harvey Mudd are not good examples because their education is geared primarily (or entirely) towards STEM majors. Harvey Mudd, in particular, has no comparison group because (to my knowledge) they only offer STEM majors. MIT offers some non-STEM majors, but I canāt seem to find where they require an advanced level course in their concentrations. I only looked briefly though (<a href=āWelcome! < MITā>Welcome! < MIT), so perhaps, I just missed it?</p>
<p>There is a world where there are no General Ed requirements - the whole of Europe (yes, a small number of exceptions, but generally there are zero requirements outside of your āmajorā in most European universities). Here they would consider high school the place to test out areas of study. Someone who is āwell-roundedā to American eyes looks unfocussed with no work ethic to European ones. There doesnāt seem to be any problem in recruiting students to courses they have not studied in high school.</p>
<p>Thank you, @cupcake. I figure thereās something to be said for each type of education. I mean, even with the most diverse general education system, thereās no way you could expose everyone to every field and profession. I tend to want quality over quantity - Iād rather be someone who is very good at one or two things than be someone that knows a little of everything and is okay at one or two things. The focus you can have without being distracted by trying to understand everything can lead to excellence in the area of focus.</p>
<p>I prefer URochesterās curriculum in which you just have to study a cluster, minor, OR major in each of three areas: humanities and arts, social sciences, and natural sciences. This gives us just enough guidelines to get a fairly well rounded education and still provide the freedom many students yearn for.</p>
<p>Granted, some will find those easiest courses to take to fulfill the requirements, for those of us who want to become well-rounded individuals, the requirements help us find courses that are both interesting to us and from different academic areas. </p>
<p>I think a lot of these debates boil down to do you want colleges to force students to become well-rounded (or whatever depending on the debate) or do you want the motivated students be able to choose what they want to be. Some are undeclared or ambivalent, but some are motivated in one field and are so obviously going to stay and succeed in their field. </p>
<p>Gen-eds could be curbed but not eliminated entirelyā¦ free electives could prove more effective if the objective of the gen-eds is to allow one to get a well-rounded education.</p>
<p>I think there are merits to both sides of this. Students in many other countries donāt really have college GenEds, aside from some writing classes, which are usually relevant to writing -within- their field of study. These students get their core general education classes in high school, and then in college they focus almost solely on the courses within their major field of study. Itās worth pointing out that a lot of these schools donāt really have much of a ācampus lifeā in the sense that a US university does though. A lot of them are really just straight to business. Go to class, go home, study, sleep, wake up, go to classā¦etc. This allows students to go into more depth at an earlier point, which is a plus in many ways. In many other countries, our first year of college is equivalent to their last year of high school. Our first year of grad school is equivalent to their last year of undergrad. It definitely provides a lot more focus. </p>
<p>However, having a core GenEd system like the US helps to create better rounded students. We get exposed to a wider range of subjects, which can often spark interests that can last a lifetime. Iām a physics major with a math minor, but I took a couple of anthropology courses as GenEd options, and anthropology is now going to be a lifelong interest/hobby for me. I was so fascinated by it that there were times I even considered switching my major to anthro. </p>
<p>I see a lot of value in this broader education. A business major may not find much relevance in an art history course. But what if this person graduates, and is one day trying to land a business deal over lunch? Suppose that this person gets into a conversation with the prospective client about art history, which causes this person to stick out prominently in the clients mind. Something as simple as this could make the difference between landing or not landing the contract. </p>
<p>If you donāt have general education requirements, itās just a trade school.</p>
<p>Donāt go to college if you want to go to a trade school. Go to a trade school. The point of college is to learn more than how to do your job, you are supposed to enjoy a breadth of education, to interact and discuss with others even if it is not exactly on your career path.</p>
<p>I find it sad that so few people understand what college used to be, and still is for many schools. Itās not a punishment to make you take history and art if you are an engineering major. Itās supposed to make you both a better person and a better engineer. Because when you end up like my friend at a Fortune 500 company as an engineer with a manager who has a BA in English, itāll help to be able to commiserate with him. And if you have to give a talk, experience from your HSS classes will help.</p>
<p>āI find it sad that so few people understand what college used to be, and still is for many schools.ā</p>
<p>How college āuse to beā or should be is a very Anglo-Saxon tradition, though even the English have abandoned it.</p>
<p>The Germans certainly donāt think that university is for breadth. Attend Oxbridge, and your education (inside the classroom, at least) will be very narrow and prescribed. Yet how many of you who deplore dropping GedEds would turn down Oxbridge (or for that matter, deplore Brown)?</p>
<p>I certainly see the value of the traditional American college curriculum, but I donāt consider people who want a different system to be āsadā.</p>