Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A). A holdover from the "old days", i.e. 1900 or 1950, when a college education was valuable. Only 20% went to college? It was a big deal. And if you knew psychology or sociology, french literature, etc, you were "educated", enlightened, "worldy", etc.
When the world was agriculturally based, or based on hard labor, you were "educated" taking GE requirements. A bunch of sweaty farmers, or guys working in the steel factory? The GE requirements were a big deal then. A way to seperate the wheat from the chaff.
B). Much of education is just a jobs program IMO. Keeps a bunch of professors employed, and keeps a bunch of 19-23 year old kids off the street. Would you rather have them in the street, or collecting unemployment, or protesting why they don't have a future? Or give them this illusion that they're being educated. I.e. if you're a politician, it looks good to educate people.
I don't believe that it improves your congnitive ability, verbal/analytical abilities, logic, etc. People drop out too much, and take too many remedial classes for that to be true.
If everyone was going to Oxford or Yale, maybe. But is that true at the state college level, freshman or sophmore year? Probably not.
If they really wanted to educate you, they'd combine different disciplines. Then you'd really understand what's going on.
I.e. The financial crisis of 08. That was a combination of greed, ego, psychology, history, finance, economics, geo-politics.
The housing bubble? Psychology definitely. Finance. Economics. Why don't they combine all 3, or more? They want you to be able to pass a test, but they don't want you too educated.
They leave out an awful lot from "general ed". Computers, technology should be part of general ed now. What about different ways of learning something? I.e. saxon math vs singapore math. Wouldn't you get more depth learning two or more methods of solving math problems.
But they don't want you that smart. It'll remain very superficial. You can learn more from amazon.
I always thought it had something to do with an overage of teachers in a certain thing like the difference between taking 4 years of English in high school versus 2 years of math. English teachers have always been a dime a dozen and math teachers hard to find. I still firmly believe that it has to do with supply and demand.
The most important thing that you will learn in college is how to learn. Learning chemistry takes a different mindset and different mental muscles than learning a language or history. If you don't have the capability to learn many different things many different ways, you are not educated, you are trained. There are plenty of ways you can get trained to do something without college, but curiously enough most professions prefer 'educated' instead.
I've always thought one big reason for general ed is to give the student a look at various majors and academic disciplines. Not everyone starts out in college knowing what they want to study, and many times people change their minds.
However, I know as an undergrad I thought we had way too many gen ed requirements at my alma mater. At some schools it's common to have a minor, at mine that was not really possible unless you were willing to take extra time to graduate, and a lot of that was probably due to all the gen ed.
I'd transferred in and had attended a couple of other schools that did not seem to have quite as many, or maybe they just were less rigid about which courses had to be taken. Been too long ago to really remember....
At some schools it's common to have a minor, at mine that was not really possible unless you were willing to take extra time to graduate, and a lot of that was probably due to all the gen ed.
Right, a minor, let alone a double major, even you have mapped out an air-tight sequenced curriculum, would require attending many of the summer sessions, the short intersessions, or require 1 or 2 additional semesters, especially since you can't bank that the required courses will be offered on a consistent basis, even at a large university.
Right, a minor, let alone a double major, even you have mapped out an air-tight sequenced curriculum, would require attending many of the summer sessions, the short intersessions, or require 1 or 2 additional semesters, especially since you can't bank that the required courses will be offered on a consistent basis, even at a large university.
i guess that depends on the school, because at mine you could easily do two majors without having to do any summer sessions or take any extra semesters.
The most important thing that you will learn in college is how to learn. Learning chemistry takes a different mindset and different mental muscles than learning a language or history. If you don't have the capability to learn many different things many different ways, you are not educated, you are trained. There are plenty of ways you can get trained to do something without college, but curiously enough most professions prefer 'educated' instead.
You don't learn anything but the absolute basics for chemistry in a course or two anymore than introductory Spanish. Take two sequential courses in Spanish, and go try and hold a conversation.
Good luck with that. On their own, General Ed courses are useless. A foundation for a building that you never planned on finishing.
The most important thing that you will learn in college is how to learn. Learning chemistry takes a different mindset and different mental muscles than learning a language or history. If you don't have the capability to learn many different things many different ways, you are not educated, you are trained. There are plenty of ways you can get trained to do something without college, but curiously enough most professions prefer 'educated' instead.
I don't think most people go to college to learn for learning sake. I'd guess most people go to college to get a degree, so they can get a job that affords at least a middle class life. If that weren't the case, you wouldn't see people complaining about the lack of jobs and the lack of return on this investment. Because the "education" remains. They are the most educated person in the unemployment line.
And you're telling me that a bunch of introductory courses which chances are, differ very little from High School courses in subject matter, teach you how to learn differently?
That's like saying Gen Ed allows you to "find yourself". What about the people who aren't lost and know exactly where they are, and where they are going, and that "liberal arts 101" will not get them there?
Location: where people are either too stupid to leave or too stuck to move
3,982 posts, read 6,687,072 times
Reputation: 3689
to waste more time and money of bs you don't even care about it
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
