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.
The idea was that taking certain courses outside of one's major helped them to become a more well-rounded person, knowledgeable about other cultures, the arts, music, foreign languages, etc. These might be helpful for someone who wants to become a sophisticated business person who travels for work. If someone feels these courses are simply a waste, perhaps trade school would be a better choice for them.
so where are the peer-reviewed scientific studies which show the benefits of a general education requirement in Universities? European universities don't require students to waste their college years on gen ed courses? Euros are said to be more cultural than Americans without mandatory gen ed requirements.
so where are the peer-reviewed scientific studies which show the benefits of a general education requirement in Universities? European universities don't require students to waste their college years on gen ed courses? Euros are said to be more cultural than Americans without mandatory gen ed requirements.
Yes, because Europeans get much of that well-rounded education during their primary and secondary education. Americans apparently don't want that either - if you spend any amount of time on these boards, you'll notice the ubiquitous "our kids should be taking shop/sewing/personal finance/etc. in high school, not useless literature and algebra classes!!!!"
Yes, because Europeans get much of that well-rounded education during their primary and secondary education. Americans apparently don't want that either - if you spend any amount of time on these boards, you'll notice the ubiquitous "our kids should be taking shop/sewing/personal finance/etc. in high school, not useless literature and algebra classes!!!!"
Way to misrepresent what's been said. No one has argued that literature and algebra aren't important. What we've argued is a well rounded education INCLUDES those other skills, in addition to a good mix of traditional academic knowledge. It's not either/or. It's both/and.
Oh please, that is so stupid. We do that in high school. What I am trying to say is that there is no need for example for me to take an astronomy class if I'm going into business. It's just stupid and it wastes my time and money.
Ok, I know the particular post I'm responding to is from several years ago, yet it illustrates the point perfectly, though not in the way it author intended. Much of the techniques in the field of Data Science, and may of it's early practitioners in the world of business were trained first as astronomers. Because modern astronomy (and other sciences) are about big data. So yes, astronomy classes were good for business -- for those who could make the connection.
so where are the peer-reviewed scientific studies which show the benefits of a general education requirement in Universities? European universities don't require students to waste their college years on gen ed courses? Euros are said to be more cultural than Americans without mandatory gen ed requirements.
Don't Europeans tend to take their equivalent of gen eds when they're in high school? Traditionally, the European high schoolers on the college-bound track tend to take more rigorous and well-rounded courses than the average high schoolers in the United States. By the time these Europeans get to college (via a rigorous process for standard universities), most have already studied languages, literature, history, art, and the sciences at levels comparable to United States college gen ed courses..
The gen-ed learning is still obligatory, but it happens at a different point in the academic timeline, and the best courses tend to go to those who are on the college track.
Even though Europeans specialize in a major field of study much earlier than their United States counterparts, many can still take electives (gen-ed style courses) in their field during their college career.
This model has changed a bit over the years as private universities have sprouted up in certain European countries. These schools are known to attract students who were locked out of desired majors in the standard "selectivity" process, or who were not on the college track but wanted to be.
Aside from all of this, I'm not sure why there would need to be scientific studies to prove the value of general ed classes. It seems self-evident to me that an education (or at least "exposure") in a variety of fields (methods and knowledge) would be beneficial to a person who wants to expand their intellectual toolbox.
Last edited by Empidonax; 07-20-2019 at 01:25 PM..
Gen Ed doesn't cost much to deliver. Colleges take the surplus they make from lecture-hall classes and use it to defray the cost-intensive programs that have high resource demands and small class sizes.
If you get rid of Gen ed you'd have to pay the full freight of what it costs to deliver high overhead, personnel-intensive and resource-heavy programs (labs, equipment, etc..) that only teach to small cohorts.
You know what kind of education is like that? Medical School. If you want all college to cost what med school costs, go ahead, get rid of gen ed.
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.
