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 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.
A slightly different take on "well rounded." It's not about being well rounded as such, but being a critically thinking individual. The ability to look at whole situations and come up with a creative solution to them. Example I'm a physicist by education and now manage a large lab. We have physicists and engineers coming out our butts. I don't need to hire a good physicist or a good engineer. I need to hire good engineers and physicists and engineers who can look at all aspects of a problem, especially the financial, political, and practical aspects to find a solution that meets the needs of multiple parties. AND be able to articulate that the non scientists and non engineers who provide the funding.
This is where so many STEM graduates fall down. Put them in front of a room of hostile execs and customers and they can't speak. Tell them to write up the project and they can't explain it in terms a non scientist can understand. Tell them to justify why they need something and the answer is often some version of "We need to do X because X is needed."
That's why people need a broader education. To be able to converse intelligently with a wide variety of people and integrated disparate items into a single effort.
I just don't buy it. Do people in other countries with other systems not know how to converse intelligently with a wide variety of people and integrate disparate items into a single effort? Lots of STEM people don't know how to do this because, frankly, many people who gravitate towards the STEM industries are highly logical people with no gift for social cues... and you can't learn that from school, either.
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.
1. Let's see...I have a degree in computer programming, 2 degrees in geology with minors in secondary education, and a degree in educational administration. Plus, quite a few grad courses not directly attached to a degree. And yet, I've never know a single person who took pottery or folk dancing or anything of the sort. Yes, many colleges have physical education requirements, and there are a wide variety of "courses", such a golf that can fulfill the requirement...because the purpose is to get people more fit and hopefully develop lifelong physical activity habits. I fulfilled one such semester of PE activity with bowling.
2. High school is very basic material. I had no idea I was attracted to geomorphology, paleontology, and physical geography until I got to college. Most people I knew changed majors within their first 2 years of college.
3. I don't want to be a European, and I don't want to be a European country, so I don't give a flying crapola what they do in Europe. Doesn't mean it's not interesting to understand about European ways (I love international travel and have lived overseas), but those who love Europe can live there and enjoy their system.
A slightly different take on "well rounded." It's not about being well rounded as such, but being a critically thinking individual. The ability to look at whole situations and come up with a creative solution to them. Example I'm a physicist by education and now manage a large lab. We have physicists and engineers coming out our butts. I don't need to hire a good physicist or a good engineer. I need to hire good engineers and physicists and engineers who can look at all aspects of a problem, especially the financial, political, and practical aspects to find a solution that meets the needs of multiple parties. AND be able to articulate that the non scientists and non engineers who provide the funding.
This is where so many STEM graduates fall down. Put them in front of a room of hostile execs and customers and they can't speak. Tell them to write up the project and they can't explain it in terms a non scientist can understand. Tell them to justify why they need something and the answer is often some version of "We need to do X because X is needed."
That's why people need a broader education. To be able to converse intelligently with a wide variety of people and integrated disparate items into a single effort.
Excellent post, particularly in regard to critical thinking and problem solving.
1. Let's see...I have a degree in computer programming, 2 degrees in geology with minors in secondary education, and a degree in educational administration. Plus, quite a few grad courses not directly attached to a degree. And yet, I've never know a single person who took pottery or folk dancing or anything of the sort. Yes, many colleges have physical education requirements, and there are a wide variety of "courses", such a golf that can fulfill the requirement...because the purpose is to get people more fit and hopefully develop lifelong physical activity habits. I fulfilled one such semester of PE activity with bowling.
2. High school is very basic material. I had no idea I was attracted to geomorphology, paleontology, and physical geography until I got to college. Most people I knew changed majors within their first 2 years of college.
3. I don't want to be a European, and I don't want to be a European country, so I don't give a flying crapola what they do in Europe. Doesn't mean it's not interesting to understand about European ways (I love international travel and have lived overseas), but those who love Europe can live there and enjoy their system.
Obviously, you don't know many people who went to a college that had lots of art courses. I have friends who actually majored in art and took pottery and who have their own businesses selling their pottery now.
The school I went to had an Engineering School and a Liberal Arts School. I majored in math, but had plenty of friends who took various art classes including pottery, drawing, etc., to fulfill their fine arts requirements. This had nothing to do with PE. We did have to take a year of PE and there were plenty of options for that as well.
I just don't buy it. Do people in other countries with other systems not know how to converse intelligently with a wide variety of people and integrate disparate items into a single effort? Lots of STEM people don't know how to do this because, frankly, many people who gravitate towards the STEM industries are highly logical people with no gift for social cues... and you can't learn that from school, either.
You can not by it but we definitely need more well rounded people who appreciate how to think critically and understand how to communicate with people in different aspects of a society. And communication skills absolutely can be taught. Most successful business professional is proof of that.
I really doubt you will find many people in the US who want to follow European education systems.
When it comes to innovation, technological advancements and development overall what proof do you have that the European models produces citizens who rival the US?
I think we should work to create a debt-free public option for some career paths. My ex-girlfriend is from France and grew up poor. She explained to me how she got money from the government every month because she did very well in high school and she got a monthly stipend all the way through college because she was a really good student. She was able to use the funds to travel and I think that could be beneficial for kids of limited means in the US. I would love to see that in a US form at a younger age. But we do have scholarship programs for the students who apply themselves the most.
I also think we should have universal healthcare but I think every other developed society has that.
Obviously, you don't know many people who went to a college that had lots of art courses. I have friends who actually majored in art and took pottery and who have their own businesses selling their pottery now.
The school I went to had an Engineering School and a Liberal Arts School. I majored in math, but had plenty of friends who took various art classes including pottery, drawing, etc., to fulfill their fine arts requirements. This had nothing to do with PE. We did have to take a year of PE and there were plenty of options for that as well.
Whoa.
I expect art students to possibly take a course in pottery. It's related. I assumed the other poster was talking about silly electives that have nothing to do with one's major.
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.
Yes, high school does that. And the requirements for high school are much broader than for college.
For example, at my local high school 23 credits are required for graduation. 4 of those credits (17%) must be English courses. What college or university requires that 17% of a degree in, say, mathematics to consist of English courses? At the same high school, 3.5 credits (15%) must be in social science courses and 3 credits (13%) must be each in mathematics as well as in the hard sciences. That's 58% of all credits. What college or university requires 58% of all degrees to consist of 58% from English/science (social and hard)/Mathematics?
General Education requirements comprise a significantly smaller portion of a college curriculum than they do of a high school curriculum. It's also true that college courses tend to be more in-depth examinations of a topic, often at a much more granular level, than one can find in high school curricula. High school courses are designed for everyone who attends high school. College and university courses are designed for only that subset of high school students who attend college.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashygalfromflushing
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.
No one is stopping you from studying chemistry and only chemistry at a college or university. Or linguistics and only linguistics. But employers aren't going to grant your transcript the same degree of respect as someone who has a broad-based degree. Do you think that Fortune 500 companies are somehow in on this 'racket'? (for no perceivable reason, as it would benefit them not at all, yet cost them talent) That makes no sense.
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.
I agree with the overall sentiment in a limited way, but I would not limit classes to just your "major". I majored in a science field and I use most of my math classes regularly, same with the technical writing class I had to take. Also, I had to take 30 or so science credits outside of my major which I also am glad were required
Some classes, like the two economics courses, the literature courses, foreign language, they all served no purpose and could have shaken a year off my degree. Btw, I went to college in Asia as well as the US and they also required a bunch of gen ed courses so I do not think this is a US vs. the world issue.
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.
