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.
... I've been to college in both the U.S. and abroad and it's much different in most places in Europe--three years instead of four, and an almost 100% focus on your major.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Most US highschools aren't as rigorous as European university-track HS programs.
The key point is that in most other nations, there are separate tracks in high-school (and even earlier): vocational, general and academic. The academic track is rigorous and exclusive, preparing students for college. Those kids who aren’t placed on the academic track, will either never reach college, or will have prodigious additional work ahead of them, to compensate for having started on the (literally) wrong track. Those who are placed on the academic track, who successfully endure its rigors, have more general knowledge upon graduating from high-school, than do their American counterparts. Thus at the college-level, instruction can focus on the major discipline, and less so on the general/broader subjects.
3-year college is primarily a British thing. On the Continent, college/university is typically 5-6 years, with the terminal degree being equivalent to a Master’s. For example, in the German and the Russian system, the first 3 years of what we now call STEM majors are devoted to mainstream courses in one’s major, and the final 2-3 on what in the US would be a Master’s thesis and associated graduate classes. Then, when doing the PhD, there are no more classes to take – just the research and the candidacy exams.
The key point is that in most other nations, there are separate tracks in high-school (and even earlier): vocational, general and academic. The academic track is rigorous and exclusive, preparing students for college. Those kids who aren’t placed on the academic track, will either never reach college, or will have prodigious additional work ahead of them, to compensate for having started on the (literally) wrong track. Those who are placed on the academic track, who successfully endure its rigors, have more general knowledge upon graduating from high-school, than do their American counterparts. Thus at the college-level, instruction can focus on the major discipline, and less so on the general/broader subjects.
.
While we're on this topic, in Germany, if you're in the university-track HS, you don't have a choice as to what university to go to. The system decides for you, depending on your exams. So in the same was as kids are tracked in junior high/highschool, and their future basically decided for them, similarly at the college entrance level, they're "tracked" as to what rank of university they're sent to. There might be some individual choice between a couple of universities of the same rank, but that's all the choice you get.
I don't know if it's the same in Russia, pez. I imagine that not every college-bound student gets to go to Moscow State U, or St. Petersburg...? And I don't know about Germany, but in Russia nowadays, only the top tier students get their studies paid for. Everyone else has to pay tuition. In Germany, uni education may be free, but living expenses are not, nor. probably, are textbooks.
I think what the op means, and I agree, is that college is expensive. A person can experiment on his own time, but his college courses should give him the cheapest (shortest) means to an end.
My grandson just graduated from OSU in engineering in 4 years. I guarantee he had no basket weaving or other time wasters.
I think what the OP is proposing is tantamount to shutting doors to the future. It seems to me that she is preaching specialization. That puts a person in a little room.
[...]
Wouldn't this approach simply amount to a glorified trade/professional skill? If colleges of today used this method to design or tailor degree programs to be more major-specific, it reduces (or streamlines?) these majors into a trade skill, which I've seen some individuals argue that STEM has or will evolve into?
I mean, traditionally, higher learning institutions championed the idea of learning for learning's sake and the importance of a well-rounded education. I see the value and importance of this approach, but I also know that learners who are otherwise indifferent toward other disciplines, especially humanities and the arts, will often sleepwalk through their courses. These are the courses they simply have to take to fulfill certain requirements, and they often do the bare minimum to get the necessary credit. So, in that sense, are they really learning anything if they're unmotivated and uninterested? For these individuals, it's just a massive waste of time and credits. They don't see the value in these courses, and part of that may be rooted in our culture's attitude toward these disciplines.
I chose a self-designed program for my undergrad, and my institution stressed independent study, with the option to take seminars. Since I am a self-directed learner by nature, having dedicated 10+ years to intense academic self-learning, this was the best program that fit my goals. The only course that was new to me was statistics, and only the math portion (the course itself centered around modern nutrition research that I had studied for a few years by that time), as I spent many years studying a wide variety of humanities and social science disciplines. Some of my seminars started to feel...redundant and I had similar thoughts as the OP, but not because I didn't see the value in gen ed, just that I already spent a lot of years covering these disciplines.
Some people like to think that only core courses are necessary, or major-specific courses, that they have the option of pursuing other disciplines on their own time. But how many people actually do this? How many people are going to engage in an academic study they likely have little or no interest in? Would most college students take a course on philosophy of religion on their own, or an intro to classical studies? Probably not.
Just like the "Don't study your passion. Your passion can be your hobby."/ but how realistic is this sentiment for most adults with responsibilities, jobs, families, etc., etc.? Most probably aren't going to take an academic dive into "non-essential" courses just for funsies.
I think, to avoid having to take "extra" courses, a learner should be able to demonstrate prior college-level learning in the area he/she seeks credit. I know CLEP is a popular choice for this. The college I attended for undergrad accepts CLEP and allows students to pursue essay project (after submitting a proposal to a committee) that demonstrates prior college-level learning in a chosen discipline or subject area. I did this and was able to graduate eight months early. The max credits that can be awarded via this method is 30, IIRC. That's a decent chunk of credits. It can apply to gen ed, electives or one's chosen major. I think this would be a good route for the self-directed learners who can demonstrate depth and breadth of knowledge in a variety of disciplines or subject areas.
I firmly believe a well-rounded education is important, however that's achieved. My husband and I are autodidacts at heart. He was an engineering major who dropped out and pursued another field. He likes STEM, but really loves humanities, social sciences, and performing/creative arts, etc. He's dedicated many years, a couple decades, to studying dozens of disciplines, just for the sake of learning. We also model our philosophy and approach to learning/education for our kids. Our older two perform very well in core academics, but there are many other subjects we've exposed them to that they haven't touched on in school. My oldest recently signed up for a few edx courses to pursue over summer break. Edx, coursera and other online course providers offer a fantastic model for all levels of learners. I wonder if encouraging self-directed learning at an early age can foster a positive attitude and appreciation for a variety of academic and creative interests. Could colleges loosen their degree/program requirements, or the paths credits are awarded, if other approaches are pursued? It could be a more affordable method for many students.
In reality, it's probably not realistic because there are many factors and variables, and home environment, accessibility and resources to afford supplemental programs/lessons/materials, can be a major factor.
Wouldn't this approach simply amount to a glorified trade/professional skill? If colleges of today used this method to design or tailor degree programs to be more major-specific, it reduces (or streamlines?) these majors into a trade skill, which I've seen some individuals argue that STEM has or will evolve into?
I mean, traditionally, higher learning institutions championed the idea of learning for learning's sake and the importance of a well-rounded education. I see the value and importance of this approach, but I also know that learners who are otherwise indifferent toward other disciplines, especially humanities and the arts, will often sleepwalk through their courses. These are the courses they simply have to take to fulfill certain requirements, and they often do the bare minimum to get the necessary credit. So, in that sense, are they really learning anything if they're unmotivated and uninterested? For these individuals, it's just a massive waste of time and credits. They don't see the value in these courses, and part of that may be rooted in our culture's attitude toward these disciplines.
I chose a self-designed program for my undergrad, and my institution stressed independent study, with the option to take seminars. Since I am a self-directed learner by nature, having dedicated 10+ years to intense academic self-learning, this was the best program that fit my goals. The only course that was new to me was statistics, and only the math portion (the course itself centered around modern nutrition research that I had studied for a few years by that time), as I spent many years studying a wide variety of humanities and social science disciplines. Some of my seminars started to feel...redundant and I had similar thoughts as the OP, but not because I didn't see the value in gen ed, just that I already spent a lot of years covering these disciplines.
Some people like to think that only core courses are necessary, or major-specific courses, that they have the option of pursuing other disciplines on their own time. But how many people actually do this? How many people are going to engage in an academic study they likely have little or no interest in? Would most college students take a course on philosophy of religion on their own, or an intro to classical studies? Probably not.
Just like the "Don't study your passion. Your passion can be your hobby."/ but how realistic is this sentiment for most adults with responsibilities, jobs, families, etc., etc.? Most probably aren't going to take an academic dive into "non-essential" courses just for funsies.
I think, to avoid having to take "extra" courses, a learner should be able to demonstrate prior college-level learning in the area he/she seeks credit. I know CLEP is a popular choice for this. The college I attended for undergrad accepts CLEP and allows students to pursue essay project (after submitting a proposal to a committee) that demonstrates prior college-level learning in a chosen discipline or subject area. I did this and was able to graduate eight months early. The max credits that can be awarded via this method is 30, IIRC. That's a decent chunk of credits. It can apply to gen ed, electives or one's chosen major. I think this would be a good route for the self-directed learners who can demonstrate depth and breadth of knowledge in a variety of disciplines or subject areas.
I firmly believe a well-rounded education is important, however that's achieved. My husband and I are autodidacts at heart. He was an engineering major who dropped out and pursued another field. He likes STEM, but really loves humanities, social sciences, and performing/creative arts, etc. He's dedicated many years, a couple decades, to studying dozens of disciplines, just for the sake of learning. We also model our philosophy and approach to learning/education for our kids. Our older two perform very well in core academics, but there are many other subjects we've exposed them to that they haven't touched on in school. My oldest recently signed up for a few edx courses to pursue over summer break. Edx, coursera and other online course providers offer a fantastic model for all levels of learners. I wonder if encouraging self-directed learning at an early age can foster a positive attitude and appreciation for a variety of academic and creative interests. Could colleges loosen their degree/program requirements, or the paths credits are awarded, if other approaches are pursued? It could be a more affordable method for many students.
In reality, it's probably not realistic because there are many factors and variables, and home environment, accessibility and resources to afford supplemental programs/lessons/materials, can be a major factor.
One of the things I don't like in today's higher education circles is the blurring of lines of what is a college. All too often trade schools are called colleges. In my view, if you have less than a 4 year degree, while you may be very well educated in your specialty, you don't have what most people refer to as a college degree. I have nothing against trade schools. I think they are ideal for many people. But they are not a college in the traditional sense in which we use the term...at least to me.
I recently had a CT scan, and the guy doing it was pretty friendly and interesting to talk with. For what he did, I guess a "trade school" was all he needed. But he was not qualified to "officially" read the results of the CT scan. And he made it clear that although he though it "looks good", that that was not a formal diagnosis. Trade school level. Very useful. But for a diagnosis the CT scan went to someone with a college degree.
Wouldn't this approach simply amount to a glorified trade/professional skill? If colleges of today used this method to design or tailor degree programs to be more major-specific, it reduces (or streamlines?) these majors into a trade skill, which I've seen some individuals argue that STEM has or will evolve into?
I mean, traditionally, higher learning institutions championed the idea of learning for learning's sake and the importance of a well-rounded education.
.
Right. The American university experience was not designed as a trade school. That's what trade schools are for. People who don't agree with the broader approach to higher ed shouldn't send their kids to universities. There are community colleges for singular focus, and there are trade schools and apprenticeships.
What we're seeing now is that some small, private liberal arts colleges are struggling, and may go under, because more students are becoming trade-school-focused. They want concrete marketable skills. So we may see specialized institutes replacing some liberal arts schools. There's nothing wrong with that. But don't expect big state universities to morph into something they're not; it's not going to happen.
Right. The American university experience was not designed as a trade school. That's what trade schools are for. People who don't agree with the broader approach to higher ed shouldn't send their kids to universities. There are community colleges for singular focus, and there are trade schools and apprenticeships.
What we're seeing now is that some small, private liberal arts colleges are struggling, and may go under, because more students are becoming trade-school-focused. They want concrete marketable skills. So we may see specialized institutes replacing some liberal arts schools. There's nothing wrong with that. But don't expect big state universities to morph into something they're not; it's not going to happen.
Yep. And they shouldn't. I've just noticed more of this sentiment on CD, which appears to flirt with anti-intellectualism.
I know that people say gen ed classes in college serve to "broaden your horizons" and "make you into a well-rounded individual" but, in theory, isn't that what high school is for? In high school, people learn an eclectic and well-rounded mix of everything: a little science, a little math, a little health, a little English, etc.
I could be wrong but I truly feel that in the United States, the university system is a racket just to obtain more money from students. Why is it that credits required for a major usually run anywhere from 30-50 (i.e. anywhere from 10 courses on up), but that in most colleges it takes 120 credits to graduate? And that students can take truly unnecessary classes like pottery or folk dancing or golf to obtain credits to graduate? No offense to those who like pottery, folk dancing, or golf intended. Or, take, for example, English 101... don't we already get English 101 in high school?
It just seems icky to me. I've been to college in both the U.S. and abroad and it's much different in most places in Europe--three years instead of four, and an almost 100% focus on your major.
It is to extract as much money as possible from you via student loans.
I know that people say gen ed classes in college serve to "broaden your horizons" and "make you into a well-rounded individual" but, in theory, isn't that what high school is for? In high school, people learn an eclectic and well-rounded mix of everything: a little science, a little math, a little health, a little English, etc.
I could be wrong but I truly feel that in the United States, the university system is a racket just to obtain more money from students. Why is it that credits required for a major usually run anywhere from 30-50 (i.e. anywhere from 10 courses on up), but that in most colleges it takes 120 credits to graduate? And that students can take truly unnecessary classes like pottery or folk dancing or golf to obtain credits to graduate? No offense to those who like pottery, folk dancing, or golf iMontended. Or, take, for example, English 101... don't we already get English 101 in high school?
It just seems icky to me. I've been to college in both the U.S. and abroad and it's much different in most places in Europe--three years instead of four, and an almost 100% focus on your major.
there are advantages, just like what you said: it broadens your thinking. What you get in high school, for those who are heading to college is mainly based on college prep. Most kids do not take Basket weaving, poetry, etc as their electives and yes, there are a lot of GE classes required. Even English, 101. But college English, as I remember it, was very different from high school English.
You can not compare our education system with Europe's as it is very different. the high school system is different. Not nearly as many kids go to college in some Europian countries as we do here. I know when our grand daughter took a year in Australia it was very different. Here in order to get into Vet school she had to have her BS degree, there she got accepted after only 2 years of college. BTW she did not end up staying there and finishing college; she was glad to come back home though we had a great year.
There isn't a better or worse way, both systems are fine, they are just different.
I think what the op means, and I agree, is that college is expensive. A person can experiment on his own time, but his college courses should give him the cheapest (shortest) means to an end.
My grandson just graduated from OSU in engineering in 4 years. I guarantee he had no basket weaving or other time wasters.
I agree with you on the expense, but I do think some GE glasses are very helpful. I don't see why they even offer classes like art for the beginner or how to bake a cake from scratch. Some classes are a waste but then I think the other side of the story is: give a kid a fun class here and there just to relax them. Is can add our 2 oldest grand kids also graduated in 4 years. Both had scholarships to some degree and either graduated or would lose them. they choose to save their parents some money and finish in as short a time as possible.
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.
