Are Gen Eds in college useful or just a drag on finishing? (Russia, costs)

[villageidiot1]

Originally Posted by riffle

Attitude makes a difference. I had courses (both in my major and unrelated to it) which I was excited about and invested in. I believe those courses contributed to my personal and professional development. I also had courses (both in my major and unrelated to it) which I was uninterested in and approached strategically as a step towards my degree. I've never thought about any of that subject matter again after graduation. You get out what you put in.

In my opinion, requiring students to select general education classes from certain buckets encourages the latter mindset. I would rather see colleges require x credits outside of the major program - whatever courses the student wants. This would encourage voluntary intellectual exploration rather than compliance.

Reminds me of my undergraduate experience in the 1970s. I had to choose between Intro to Art, Music, or Theatre. Little did I realize I was getting a theatre fanatic who directed all of the university's plays and musicals. I also had to choose from a list of social science and humanities electives. I ended up with a World Religions course with a Chinese professor who I could not understand a word he said. Someone recommended a certain English professor for my English III course. I remember vividly the day in class when she talked about how she tried to commit suicide by sticking her head in her oven. She didn't succeed and then had visions of butterflies. To get an A, your papers had to be on a level similar to her experiences.

I remember my experience scheduling courses in college was a nightmare. This was in the 1970s and the computer system usually crashed. All the scheduling was done over three days and certain people got priority for scheduling. Athletes, residence hall advisors and certain other people were given priority. By the time I registered, most classes were full. I had to take the classes and professors that nobody else wanted.

Bottom line is general education requirements are definitely useful, but you need have flexibility to take courses that interest you. I've gone back to school several times and scheduling was much better and the choices were much more flexible.

[tnff]

Originally Posted by ElijahAstin

In a broad sense, yes, but when you’re given any sort of assignment, you have to do what the professor wants in order to get credit. If the professor asks you to write a personal essay about a difficult life event and you turn in a narrative fiction novel, then you deserve the zero you will very likely get.
.

Unfortunately the issue under discussion isn't about whether the student followed directions but how well the story was slanted to fit the personal beliefs of the professor. Consider:

I was raised the son of a sharecropper. Dad, a child of the Depression, bent his back in the cotton fields to fill a sack of cotton for the overbearing landlord. There was never enough cotton picked to satisfy the bank. He was forced to fight for the wealthy industrialists who grew rich on the spoils of war. Afterward his family suffered in a cement block home.

vs

I was raised the son of a sharecropper. Dad, a child of the Depression, learned the value of hard work in the cotton fields. A member of the Greatest Generation, he sacrificed to liberate others from a cruel dictatorship and restore freedom to a continent. Afterward he returned home to work hard, build a home and raise a family who learned the value of hard work through him. And passed to a son, grandson, and granddaughter a heritage of service to our great nation.


One of these is true. One would get an A in my history professor's class, the other a D.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by tnff

Unfortunately the issue under discussion isn't about whether the student followed directions but how well the story was slanted to fit the personal beliefs of the professor. Consider:

I was raised the son of a sharecropper. Dad, a child of the Depression, bent his back in the cotton fields to fill a sack of cotton for the overbearing landlord. There was never enough cotton picked to satisfy the bank. He was forced to fight for the wealthy industrialists who grew rich on the spoils of war. Afterward his family suffered in a cement block home.

vs

I was raised the son of a sharecropper. Dad, a child of the Depression, learned the value of hard work in the cotton fields. A member of the Greatest Generation, he sacrificed to liberate others from a cruel dictatorship and restore freedom to a continent. Afterward he returned home to work hard, build a home and raise a family who learned the value of hard work through him. And passed to a son, grandson, and granddaughter a heritage of service to our great nation.


One of these is true. One would get an A in my history professor's class, the other a D.

I don’t know why you use the word “unfortunately,” but I followed up my purposefully simplistic initial response with a more detailed post explaining my position. Obviously, extreme examples like the one you identify are unacceptable, but they’re very few and far between in my experience.

Some this disconnect probably stems from the fact that you need to apply different mentalities, skillsets, and expectations, when you approach humanities versus non-humanities courses. Again, I in no way condone the extreme example that you cite. But I’m also not outraged by the fact that professors, like the rest of us, are only human, and it’s not only advisable, but I also believe a good critical thinking (not to mention, real world) exercise, to tailor your approach to your given audience. I was never a shill or a parrot. Most professors aren’t impressed by that sort of strategy. While it might be enough to get you a B, it isn’t how you end up with A’s.

The upside is that when there is more than one right answer, there is a lot more room for students to earn high marks (and hence, the culture of liberal arts grade inflation). Obviously, the range of correct responses is far narrower in STEM courses (and in many cases there is literally only one right answer). But the flip side is that these courses, which are often curved, are far less susceptible to grade inflation.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by villageidiot1

Reminds me of my undergraduate experience in the 1970s. I had to choose between Intro to Art, Music, or Theatre. Little did I realize I was getting a theatre fanatic who directed all of the university's plays and musicals. I also had to choose from a list of social science and humanities electives. I ended up with a World Religions course with a Chinese professor who I could not understand a word he said. Someone recommended a certain English professor for my English III course. I remember vividly the day in class when she talked about how she tried to commit suicide by sticking her head in her oven. She didn't succeed and then had visions of butterflies. To get an A, your papers had to be on a level similar to her experiences.

As I’ve said before, the specific professor that you have makes a huge difference in gen eds. For Music 101, I specifically took the easy professor who understood that the class was for STEM majors to meet their fine arts requirement; it was no work outside class, and basically everybody got an A. But there were other professors who would treat the class as if it were training for a professional career in music, even though nobody headed toward a professional career in music would take Music 101.

At my college, we needed 1 gen ed each semester. It seems other posters had to take all of their gen eds early on in their college career, when they knew little about the specific professors, and also had fewer grades, so one bad grade would really ruin their GPA.

My advice would be, early on, take gen eds in subjects that you are fairly sure won’t ruin your GPA, regardless of professor. Then later on, when you know more about the individual professors, and the individual grade won’t matter as much, take the ones in subjects where you are weaker. If you absolutely have to take a very demanding gen ed, take it during a semester where your major classes aren’t too demanding. Or, take it our last semester, when you no longer have to worry about losing your scholarship.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by ElijahAstin

I don’t know why you use the word “unfortunately,” but I followed up my purposefully simplistic initial response with a more detailed post explaining my position. Obviously, extreme examples like the one you identify are unacceptable, but they’re very few and far between in my experience.

Some this disconnect probably stems from the fact that you need to apply different mentalities, skillsets, and expectations, when you approach humanities versus non-humanities courses. Again, I in no way condone the extreme example that you cite. But I’m also not outraged by the fact that professors, like the rest of us, are only human

If your doctor made a mistake, and you were going to be disabled for life because of it, would you just accept it, saying that your doctor is only human? If you were to spend life in prison for a crime you did not commit, would you just accept it, saying that the arresting officer, the judge, and the jurors were all only Human?

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

If your doctor made a mistake, and you were going to be disabled for life because of it, would you just accept it, saying that your doctor is only human? If you were to spend life in prison for a crime you did not commit, would you just accept it, saying that the arresting officer, the judge, and the jurors were all only Human?

No, but acknowledging the fact that you, I, and everyone else has some degree of bias is not tantamount to extreme medical malpractice or wrongful conviction of first-degree murder. Tailoring my papers to my audience without writing pandering slop was never a heavy lift for me.

It seems you’re just not a humanities person. And I say that with no disrespect because I could not, in a million years, even begin to do what you do. I’m excellent with numbers, but anything visual-spatial is just a killer for me. And I recognize that the fact I can’t excel in your sort of field is a product of my own limitations and not because there’s something inherently unfair about engineering and hard sciences-geared coursework.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by ElijahAstin

No, but acknowledging the fact that you, I, and everyone else has some degree of bias is not tantamount to extreme medical malpractice or wrongful conviction of first-degree murder. Tailoring my papers to my audience without writing pandering slop was never a heavy lift for me.

It seems you’re just not a humanities person. And I say that with no disrespect because I could not, in a million years, even begin to do what you do. I’m excellent with numbers, but anything visual-spatial is just a killer for me. And I recognize that the fact I can’t excel in your sort of field is a product of my own limitations and not because there’s something inherently unfair about engineering and hard sciences-geared coursework.

All valid points. I think a valid question is, is subjectivity inherently unfair in high stakes situations? Are judgment calls inherently unfair in high stakes situations?

[mitsguy2001]

Another reason why STEM people may dislike gen eds: at least at the college I attended, liberal arts majors could take very easy math and science classes to meet their math and science gen ed requirements. Math classes that covered material I learned in middle school. A physics class that had no math at all, just concepts. STEM majors were not even allowed to take those classes. But STEM majors were not given easier ways to meet the humanities gen eds. Mostly the same classes the liberal arts majors took. I once pointed that out, and I was sarcastically told to start my own college if I didn’t like it.

[tnff]

Originally Posted by ElijahAstin

Tailoring my papers to my audience without writing pandering slop was never a heavy lift for me.
.

I think that's where much of this discussion/disagreement sits. Tailoring without pandering. I think most of us can agree that tailoring to the audience is an expected skill. The disagreement lies in the number of professors who needed pandering to give out good grades. What I saw was the number of professors who taught the Gen Ed subjects that needed pandering was significant. My first semester English and first semester History professors were perfect examples of this. In fact, there was an incredibly strong contrast between my first semester English and second semester English professors on this very topic. While discussing one particularly silly poem (Red Wheelbarrow), she went into a side tangent about how so many of her colleagues took themselves and their personal analysis of poetry/literature way to seriously to where the only "right" answer in their class was "their answer" and listed off some of those professors to avoid. Likewise my grade also changed completely (for the positive) in her class vs my first semester class.

These next two are both very valid points.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

All valid points. I think a valid question is, is subjectivity inherently unfair in high stakes situations? Are judgment calls inherently unfair in high stakes situations?

Now that is a very interesting question. When the question is, for example, the meaning of a poem, is there an inherently right or wrong answer since it's really a matter of opinion & taste?

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Another reason why STEM people may dislike gen eds: at least at the college I attended, liberal arts majors could take very easy math and science classes to meet their math and science gen ed requirements. Math classes that covered material I learned in middle school. A physics class that had no math at all, just concepts. STEM majors were not even allowed to take those classes. But STEM majors were not given easier ways to meet the humanities gen eds. Mostly the same classes the liberal arts majors took. I once pointed that out, and I was sarcastically told to start my own college if I didn’t like it.

That's a great point. At the college I attended, there were a whole collection of "XYZ for liberal arts majors" classes. Basically "Physics for Dummies" or "Math for Dummies" or "Chemistry for Dummies" courses that required virtually no homework and no math. Basically, a repeat of high school. But there were no "XYZ for science/engineering majors" counterparts.

There were even times I found myself, and a couple of my friends, in upper division liberal arts courses surrounded by majors in those courses, where I was expected to produce the same product as the English teachers, some of whom were grad students. Yet not once did I find a teacher in one of my physics courses. Not one.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by tnff

I think that's where much of this discussion/disagreement sits. Tailoring without pandering. I think most of us can agree that tailoring to the audience is an expected skill. The disagreement lies in the number of professors who needed pandering to give out good grades. What I saw was the number of professors who taught the Gen Ed subjects that needed pandering was significant. My first semester English and first semester History professors were perfect examples of this. In fact, there was an incredibly strong contrast between my first semester English and second semester English professors on this very topic. While discussing one particularly silly poem (Red Wheelbarrow), she went into a side tangent about how so many of her colleagues took themselves and their personal analysis of poetry/literature way to seriously to where the only "right" answer in their class was "their answer" and listed off some of those professors to avoid. Likewise my grade also changed completely (for the positive) in her class vs my first semester class.

A valid question is, where is the line between tailoring vs pandering? I also wonder if gen eds are where liberal arts departments dump their poor professors, just like STEM departments tend to dump their poor professors in the weed out classes. In both cases, they know that a nobody in their right mind would take an elective class with such professors.

These next two are both very valid points.

Now that is a very interesting question. When the question is, for example, the meaning of a poem, is there an inherently right or wrong answer since it's really a matter of opinion & taste?

Maybe some classes that are inherently very subjective and/or political can be graded Pass / Fail. Although I wonder if making it all or nothing would just give too much power to the professor. I had teachers or professors who didn’t like me give me a B or C when I clearly deserved an A, just to stick it to me. But what the only way a professor could stick it to a student he/she didn’t like was to flunk him / her.

That's a great point. At the college I attended, there were a whole collection of "XYZ for liberal arts majors" classes. Basically "Physics for Dummies" or "Math for Dummies" or "Chemistry for Dummies" courses that required virtually no homework and no math. Basically, a repeat of high school. But there were no "XYZ for science/engineering majors" counterparts.

There were even times I found myself, and a couple of my friends, in upper division liberal arts courses surrounded by majors in those courses, where I was expected to produce the same product as the English teachers, some of whom were grad students. Yet not once did I find a teacher in one of my physics courses. Not one.

Exactly.