<p>^ Amen to that. </p>
<p>That is, rather than making a Politics major take some non-challenging math class (precalculus, college algebra), make it a major requirement for her/him to take something relevant to logic/critical thinking.</p>
<p>I agree that colleges do vary in their rigor and distribution requirements.
Ds school for example, did not offer math below calculus, and had strict distribution requirements for graduation, besides what was necessary for the major.
Since it was such a small school, students needing Humanities courses, were taking them along side Lit majors, and students majoring in Chinese, for example,found that their science labs were full of people majoring in biochem.
However, there is still a need for schools that offer physics for poets, or Rox for Jox, otherwise they wouldnât be out there.</p>
<p>@cobrat
</p>
<p>Hmmmm⊠seems a certain University recently in the news has perfected this exact system for itâs athletes. S is on the ME path. He has a very limited number of GE slots in his 4 year rubric schedule. Somehow heâs managing to do a language minor (or possibly even a major). This in spite of the fact that a number of he GE slots are preassigned to some of the grievance disciplines. I have no fear that the philosophy, geography, history department would do just fine if GEâs were no longer required. The problem will be with the sustainability of the 'History of the oppressed island villagers residing under colonial expansionist societies during the trans continental migration of the Mammoths. '</p>
<p>How do you shade the words you are quoting?</p>
<p>I have to admit, true or not, that ârocks for jocksâ phrase had me rolling on the floor. 
</p>
<p>âGetting students to have a well rounded educationâ is a fancy way of saying âWe are going to exploit as much money from them as possibleâ. And how exactly can one define âa well rounded educationâ? Letâs say that students are required to take an art or music class. One chooses âMusic of The Beatlesâ and the other chooses âIntro to Artâ. They wonât have the same knowledge anyway. And how much do you think that they would remember anything after the final exam is over? They barely have any use for what they learned, and thereâs very little chance that they will even need them.</p>
<p>Itâs the studentsâ choices to follow their own path. If they want to learn more about the world, let them do it at their will. I also think itâs better to do my own research when I am free and not under pressure, as opposed to getting into a class with the mentality of âI better memorize all of these, they might be on the testâ. Not to mention that many of us already have our hands full with part-time job, works from the main courses, and we also need a little time to relax our minds. Money doesnât grow on trees, you know.</p>
<p>Forcing students to have a broader view, even on things that they have absolutely no interest in, is an unrealistic goal. We already have them scratch the surface in high school. Thereâs no need to force them to go deeper if they have decided what they want to do. I donât get why someone doesnât realize that college students are adults, and they have the ability to decide what they want to major in. Those who are on the fence, let them take those classes and see what they like. Itâs pointless to force it on the ones who have already decided on their career. Music? Art? Biology? Child Development? For a computer science or a foreign language major?</p>
<p>The point is, many students are not going to learn anything much no matter how hard you force them to. Itâs a wet dream for the ultimate nerds in charge. They would just sit there, wait for class to be over, dread it, and do the minimum amount of work to pass. Then, at the end, they would just wonder what was the point of taking that class, beside just to get through the requirement. Thatâs the reality.</p>
<p>I get sick of hearing schools saying things like they just want students to know what they need in life. Oh really? How about instead of solving the area of a hexagon, teach them how to cook and write a checkbook or file taxes?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Another critical factor in the high dropout rate is the low/open-admission policies which admit far too many students who end up not being able to cope even with the remedial courses on offer. I tutored a friendâs ex who flunked a 9th grade-level algebra course IN A NE PUBLIC COLLEGE and was well on her way to flunking it a second time. I was astounded a college was even allowing someone to take a HS level class to fulfill their quantitative proficiency requirement. </p>
<p>In many foreign countries with 3 year BA/BS degrees, a student with such lack of proficiency in basic math and/or writing skills would never be allowed to be placed on the college-track, much less be admitted to college. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And here lies another symptom of a unique US problem of parents/society delegating teaching of basic life skills which not too long ago was expected to be learned from oneâs parents or oneself as a part of growing up. </p>
<p>This type of talk in some foreign societies/cultures I know of would be met with eyerolls and the assumption any student who really needs to be taught such things by schools wouldnât be considered college material. </p>
<p>Some parents arenât very good at cooking, let alone teaching their children. If schools brag so much about teaching students what they need in life, why donât they teach them those things? Is solving a hexagonâs area more important to those who isnât interested in math than cooking and filing out taxes?
Mind you, I am merely stating examples. You got to do what you brag. I have talked to students from different countries, and they share the same opinion. Itâs just that they prefer to not argue, get over the courses in anyway possible and then quickly forget what they learned. </p>
<p>Well, thatâs what the ones that really donât care are going to do. Theyâre going to chug through those classes to check the box then forget about it.</p>
<p>ucbalumnus 'Isnât it also the case that those school systems require the student to choose (or track the student in) a specific educational and career path much earlier? I.e. by early high school, the student is already set on a path (e.g. university path versus trade school path), and changing would mean significant delay and âcatch upâ work. That allows for designing the high school education to be optimal for each group of students, at a cost of requiring earlier choosing and tracking that some may consider unreasonable to require at such an early age. â </p>
<p>Our experience and that of friends in various parts of the UK is that comprehensive (high) schools are careful to ensure that everyone has a broadly based set of subjects until GCSEâs (age 16) . After that there is a choice of academic, applied and vocational courses which are sometimes mixed, and all can lead to uni if the appropriate standards are met. 11-18+ schools will not usually offer post school vocational courses and advanced applied subjects may be limited, although students may be based at one school and attend others including Further Ed colleges for specific subjects. The high schools take the full ability range from those who are learning disabled to potential Oxbridge candidates. Yes, some post-16 students will change their minds whilst still in school and need to repeat a year with different subjects to enable them to do so, but it seems to cause little difficulty. S did this as do a small number most years. 3 year degrees follow. </p>
<p>In my humble opinion, GEs are a hindrance to those students who really want to dive into what they are passionate about. They may be helpful to obtain a knowledge of the world but they should definitely not be a requirement. Without GEs students can spend more time finding internships, developing apps (in the case of computer science) or do something else more worthwhile. This is important considering that there are many students have ALREADY decided what they want to do when they enter college. While somewhat off-topic, even in high school do required classes cause problems. Specifically, lets say I am really good in the maths and sciences and have taken a lot of classes outside of school related to my major. If I screw up in my required classes, I am restricted from getting into certain top universities even though I am probably more qualified than others (in terms of my major) who get in. Why is a student judged based on his ability to analyze literature when he is never going to do that for more than half of his life ? Required courses are a complete waste of time and get the wrong students to the wrong places. </p>
<p>I know, @swagcity64, I would like nothing better than to immerse myself in classes I really care about. </p>
<p>I am floored by the notion that learning to cook or fill out your taxes should be college coursework.</p>
<p>I think people were trying to be sarcastic with those remarks, showing how subjective the relative usefulness of classes outside your major could be. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The issue is there are American parents and students who seriously believe schoolsâŠincluding colleges should be teaching âuseful subjectsâ such as cooking, filing taxes, budgeting, etcâŠstuff that many older generation Americans and foreigners feel should be taught at home or figured out by adults without the need for it to be taught as a full-fledged class. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The issue with the above, especially in a US K-12 system which is already very hit-or-miss on teaching basic math and writing skills along with the rudiments of GE is that this will effectively further water down the education and thus, the ultimate value of the US BA/BS degree.</p>
<p>Incidentally, the reason why ABET and many engineering schools have the social science/humanities requirements was because decades ago, many employers hiring engineering graduates were calling/writing in to complain about the engineering gradsâ lack of proficiency in written communication and in dealing with people from non-technical backgroundsâŠincluding clients. </p>
<p>A former supervisor I had who was an engineering graduate was part of the first incoming freshman classes which had what became the current social science/humanities requirements. He actually found those GE classes valuable in his career and daily life and looks askance at engineering/CS majors and graduates who have issues with them. </p>
<p>@cobratâ I do not understand how the lack of GEs would water down the BA/BS degree. In fact, the lack of GEs would lead to people taking more classes related to their majors which would make the BA/BS degree a better representation of what a student is doing in college. Also, of course people absolutely need basic writing and math skills but most GE classes have a PREREQUISITE of a basic english or math class. In other words these, GEs are more specific to an area and do not usually cover the basics. For instance, lets take a literature class. In a normal literature class, you would be analyzing literary elements and be writing about them. All of this is a level above the basics, which is more than what is needed to communicate in the real world. Also, regarding the supervisor, I understand where he is coming from. However, the expected benefits of GEs do not usually come across because most people are forced to take them. Since they are forced to take them, they simply try to bs their way through these classes, which does not yield any benefits. Why might they be bsing these classes ? As I said before, they simply do not have time for them. It is hard to focus on interests that are demanding and other things at the same time. Just to clarify, most GE classes are great and could be useful but you wouldnât choose them over your career and your dreams right ?</p>
<p>I guess some peopleâs career and dreams are to become the most well rounded person there is. Spheres are fun to play with, but to build something you need blocks.</p>
<p>Doesnât anyone go to college to get an education anymore? It seems like so many just want to get trained for a money making job.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With the high cost of college, and the relatively poor job prospects that most people have with just a high school diploma, it would not be surprising if future job and pay prospects were among the main motivations to seek post-secondary education for most students (whether or not anyone here thinks it is a good or bad thing).</p>
<p>That said, there is career value in having some breadth of education. In any field, there are situations where interaction with another field of knowledge is needed. Those who have at least some exposure to other fields of knowledge will be better able to handle such situations.</p>
<p>@ucbalumnusâ I totally agree with you but do you think people should be required to look into these other fields ? Also isnât it more beneficial to get as much of your own field down first ?
@JustOneDadâ I always perceived college as a bridge to get to where you want to be. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This often is not possible in the first few semesters of a major with sequenced prerequisites. A student may only be able to take one or two courses (out of four) for his/her major in his/her first few semesters, because the advanced courses in his/her major require the introductory sequence to be completed first.</p>
<p>Now, if the curriculum were to be reorganized without general education requirements or electives, the introductory sequence courses could be doubled up, so that the first semester is composed of two double-size courses toward the major, instead of two normal-size courses toward the major and two breadth courses or electives. But some students may be less able to handle that fast a pace in each subject, even if they are able to handle the normal pace.</p>