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

[ElijahAstin]

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?

High-stakes situations often require some amount of subjectivity and judgment calls—and that remains true even in the hard sciences. You may have the benefit of more objective quantitative data during a decision-making process, but you must ultimately apply your own human reasoning—biases, blind spots, and all—in choosing a course of action. I have to imagine that your traffic engineer job is far more than just number crunching!

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 an interesting point, and certainly one worthy of consideration. Some quick googling suggests that these courses do exist, but likely not in the same quantities as “Rocks for Jocks” et al.

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.

And I just never saw anything even remotely that extreme. It may have helped that, as a creative nonfiction major, my English literature requirements were not incredibly extensive, so I was much less likely to encounter a professor stuck that far down the Ivory Tower rabbit hole in the first place. I even made a joke about that in the introduction to one of my (A-earning) capstone creative nonfiction papers, advising the reader that if they chose to give my story a feminist-Marxist-anarchosyndicalist reading, they were looking for things which simply weren’t there. Still, I think that extreme examples aside, what a humanities-geared might consider “tailoring,” a STEM-oriented student will be more prone to consider “pandering.”

In my creative nonfiction classes, this was never an issue. I’m fairly left-progressive now, but I was very centrist in college (the liberal and conservative contingents both seeming to me like campus cliches), and I noticed that I often fell somewhat to the right of my professors on given issues. One such creative nonfiction professor, who gave me an A+, even acknowledged in class (in an objective and not at all hostile way) that we had disparate views on some key issues. It probably helped that my UG had a highly reputable creative nonfiction program (and, in fact, offered the first such program). When I tailored my writing to my professors, it was in terms of the modes, methods, and subject matters which seemed to interest them, but the underlying content was my own story from my own perspective.

Professors could be a little more overt about their political leanings in my poli sci major courses (for obvious reasons), but I never had a professor anywhere near as overbearing as you describe. My favorite poli sci professor (with whom I took four courses and who wrote one of my law school recommendation letters) seemed to find one group, with which I was actively affiliated in college, with a palpable level of distaste (revealed in part by her perennial and likely purposeful mispronunciation of said group name). In the third class I took with her, I had the opportunity to write about this group and even shared that some of my knowledge was firsthand. I tailored my writing to the extent that I kept my analysis very nuanced and gave serious consideration to her own point of view. But I didn’t feign any sort of ideological conversion in my conclusion and basically said, “The critics raise some good points that may be taken under advisement, but there is nothing wrong with the fact that this group exists and happens to be good at obtaining its objectives.” And I got an A.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by tnff

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.

That's because the teachers were in the Physics-for-Teachers course. I took that course because it was required for a teaching certificate, but I never understood why. I was getting certified in foreign languages. Why was physics required for that? No other sciences were, nor any arts classes, nor history, etc. Strange.

[YorktownGal]

Originally Posted by ElijahAstin

Professors could be a little more overt about their political leanings in my poli sci major courses (for obvious reasons), but I never had a professor anywhere near as overbearing as you describe.

I had a senior level history course on the impact of The Emancipation Reform of 1861 in Russia. The professor had his opinion and would not allow an alternate view. The students who parroted him word for word received A's. At 21 years old, I was unable to stand up to him. Forty years later, I am sorry I didn't stand my ground and tell him where to get off.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

That's because the teachers were in the Physics-for-Teachers course. I took that course because it was required for a teaching certificate, but I never understood why. I was getting certified in foreign languages. Why was physics required for that? No other sciences were, nor any arts classes, nor history, etc. Strange.

If physics for teachers classes exist, why do they not have literature for engineers classes? Or, if there are physics classes with no math, why not literature classes without reading?

[509]

Originally Posted by TexasLawyer2000

There's a lot of discussion here about the usefulness for gen ed classes for a professional career, but very little discussion about its usefulness for a college education.

I have a professional degree.

Classes I could have skipped. Totally useless.

Nine credits of history. It helped my GPA being all A's. But other than that it was high school all over again.

Eight credits of English. That class should be replaced with a technical writing class for science majors. The professional school required it at the upper division level. I did replace the last four credits of English with a public speaking class. That was VERY USEFUL in my career.

Three credits of health. REALLY??

Physical education classes. REALLY??

Psychology and Sociology. It would have been better to have more focused classes for science majors.

Political Science. Again, you could put together a very useful lower division class for science majors. Due to the nature of my field, it was covered in upper division and graduate school.

As to your question of the of general education classes for a liberal arts degree I think you can do better with sitting in the library and reading magazines and books at random. I learned more in the college library about general education topics than I did taking general education classes.

I think the other factor is that without the worthless general education requirements I could have gotten my degree in THREE years instead of FOUR.

That is a real savings in tuition and living costs these days.

I spent close to $50,000 for a four year stint at a public university for my daughter. AND she worked to supplement the cost.

It would have saved us about 20,000 dollars to be able to drop one year of general education classes.

The question should be are General Education classes worth $20,000 dollars and one year of time??

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by 509

I have a professional degree.

Classes I could have skipped. Totally useless.

Nine credits of history. It helped my GPA being all A's. But other than that it was high school all over again.

Eight credits of English. That class should be replaced with a technical writing class for science majors. The professional school required it at the upper division level. I did replace the last four credits of English with a public speaking class. That was VERY USEFUL in my career.

Three credits of health. REALLY??

Physical education classes. REALLY??

Psychology and Sociology. It would have been better to have more focused classes for science majors.

Political Science. Again, you could put together a very useful lower division class for science majors. Due to the nature of my field, it was covered in upper division and graduate school.

As to your question of the of general education classes for a liberal arts degree I think you can do better with sitting in the library and reading magazines and books at random. I learned more in the college library about general education topics than I did taking general education classes.

I think the other factor is that without the worthless general education requirements I could have gotten my degree in THREE years instead of FOUR.

That is a real savings in tuition and living costs these days.

I spent close to $50,000 for a four year stint at a public university for my daughter. AND she worked to supplement the cost.

It would have saved us about 20,000 dollars to be able to drop one year of general education classes.

The question should be are General Education classes worth $20,000 dollars and one year of time??

You raise some valid points, 509. I'm surprised a college would require phys ed & health. Also the 8 credits of history and another 8 of English seem excessive. Usually colleges/universities want the students to spread their Gen Ed's around. It's unusual to require that much focus on history and English.

I think parents and students should look at factors like that, and avoid such schools. It usually doesn't occur to students looking for a college that's a good fit, to look at the GenEd req's.


I'm thinking, that maybe it's time of colleges to cut back on the number of GenEd credits required; instead of requiring 20 cr. in each of 3 broad categories, which is typical (arts, science, various humanities categories, plus foreign language), 15 credits each should be enough. Or maybe even 10.

[509]

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

If physics for teachers classes exist, why do they not have literature for engineers classes? Or, if there are physics classes with no math, why not literature classes without reading?

How about a literature class for STEM majors where the author reading list is.....

Asimov, Wells, Bradbury, Clarke, Heinlein, or my favorite Fredrick Brown. Then to make it tough on the Liberal Arts students you have to not only discuss the literature, but the underlying science as well.

I bet STEM students would get a lot more out of that class than English 1A psychology and sociology combined.

[509]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

You raise some valid points, 509. I'm surprised a college would require phys ed & health. Also the 8 credits of history and another 8 of English seem excessive. Usually colleges/universities want the students to spread their Gen Ed's around. It's unusual to require that much focus on history and English.

I think parents and students should look at factors like that, and avoid such schools. It usually doesn't occur to students looking for a college that's a good fit, to look at the GenEd req's.


I'm thinking, that maybe it's time of colleges to cut back on the number of GenEd credits required; instead of requiring 20 cr. in each of 3 broad categories, which is typical (arts, science, various humanities categories, plus foreign language), 15 credits each should be enough. Or maybe even 10.

My requirements were 50 years ago. Since I was a junior college transfer, I think I ended up completing the requirements for the junior college, Humbolt State College, and UC Berkeley. I finally transferred to Berkeley.

If I remember correctly, the History credits were my choice for completing the general ed requirements. It was an easy A for me, and with the STEM classes I could concentrate on them rather than History!! With a STEM load, and particularly if your NOT a genius your always balancing the classes. My human physiology instructor told me I was doing poorly in class. I ended up with a B+, but that meant I ended up with a C in Calculus. That made me really mad, since Calculus was more important in my major than human physiology.

When I hired people I didn't look at their GPA. I looked at their grades by class. Even ten years after leaving college, those skill levels take a bit of time to change. The C in English and A in public speaking can tell you a lot about the person your hiring even for STEM majors.

General education requirements are not bad in themselves. It is just that their useless for most STEM majors and they cost a LOT OF MONEY AND TIME.

[tnff]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

That's because the teachers were in the Physics-for-Teachers course. I took that course because it was required for a teaching certificate, but I never understood why. I was getting certified in foreign languages. Why was physics required for that? No other sciences were, nor any arts classes, nor history, etc. Strange.

But that drives the question, if there are "Physics for Teachers" (etc) classes that require no heavy duty physics, then why aren't there "Lit for Physicists" which don't require pages of reading and huge papers describing what was read? Or much more appropriately, why not instead of English Comp, instead Technical Writing and Public Speaking classes? Those would actually be useful.

Originally Posted by 509

I have a professional degree.

Classes I could have skipped. Totally useless.

Nine credits of history. It helped my GPA being all A's. But other than that it was high school all over again.

Eight credits of English. That class should be replaced with a technical writing class for science majors. The professional school required it at the upper division level. I did replace the last four credits of English with a public speaking class. That was VERY USEFUL in my career.

...

The question should be are General Education classes worth $20,000 dollars and one year of time??

Agree all the way down, esp on the Tech Writing and the cost of an added year to take these Gen Eds. That's spot on to the original premise of this thread.

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

You raise some valid points, 509. I'm surprised a college would require phys ed & health. Also the 8 credits of history and another 8 of English seem excessive. Usually colleges/universities want the students to spread their Gen Ed's around. It's unusual to require that much focus on history and English.

I think parents and students should look at factors like that, and avoid such schools. It usually doesn't occur to students looking for a college that's a good fit, to look at the GenEd req's.

I'm thinking, that maybe it's time of colleges to cut back on the number of GenEd credits required; instead of requiring 20 cr. in each of 3 broad categories, which is typical (arts, science, various humanities categories, plus foreign language), 15 credits each should be enough. Or maybe even 10.

My college was samilar. Heavy load of specific Gen Eds that everyone had to take, regardless of degree, then a number of Gen Eds electives but were limited to which fields you could pick from. There were only a few "free" electives where you can follow your individual interests in terms of the Gen Ed credits.

My whole thesis of this thread is that colleges have too many Gen Eds that duplicate high school. Those may have been appropriate 100 years ago when high school was much more limited, but times have changed.

Originally Posted by 509

How about a literature class for STEM majors where the author reading list is.....

Asimov, Wells, Bradbury, Clarke, Heinlein, or my favorite Fredrick Brown. Then to make it tough on the Liberal Arts students you have to not only discuss the literature, but the underlying science as well.

I bet STEM students would get a lot more out of that class than English 1A psychology and sociology combined.

I could have gotten enthralled by such as course instead of more Grammar and Comp.

Originally Posted by 509

My requirements were 50 years ago. Since I was a junior college transfer, I think I ended up completing the requirements for the junior college, Humbolt State College, and UC Berkeley. I finally transferred to Berkeley.

If I remember correctly, the History credits were my choice for completing the general ed requirements. It was an easy A for me, and with the STEM classes I could concentrate on them rather than History!! With a STEM load, and particularly if your NOT a genius your always balancing the classes. My human physiology instructor told me I was doing poorly in class. I ended up with a B+, but that meant I ended up with a C in Calculus. That made me really mad, since Calculus was more important in my major than human physiology.

General education requirements are not bad in themselves. It is just that their useless for most STEM majors and they cost a LOT OF MONEY AND TIME.

To me that's a big key. They consume time that is better spent elsewhere and add a lot of cost to your time in college.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by 509

My requirements were 50 years ago. Since I was a junior college transfer, I think I ended up completing the requirements for the junior college, Humbolt State College, and UC Berkeley. I finally transferred to Berkeley.

If I remember correctly, the History credits were my choice for completing the general ed requirements. It was an easy A for me, and with the STEM classes I could concentrate on them rather than History!! With a STEM load, and particularly if your NOT a genius your always balancing the classes. My human physiology instructor told me I was doing poorly in class. I ended up with a B+, but that meant I ended up with a C in Calculus. That made me really mad, since Calculus was more important in my major than human physiology.

And that is a point that I keep making that a lot of people don't understand. When you have one especially demanding class, it's not just that one grade that goes down. Since you have only a finite amount of time, spending more time on one class (in your case, human physiology) means all of your grades going down, since it means less time to spend on other classes (calculus in your class).

The advice I would give is, when you have an especially demanding class, do not spend an excessive amount of time on that class to the detriment of your other classes. The best strategy might be to focus on getting an A in your other classes, and accepting that in one class, the grade will not reflect that work that you did.

Another poster had a good point that you sometimes need to think of what a particular class means to you, outside of the grade. If it's something you will be using in your job, or a prerequisite for future classes, then put your all into it, regardless of the grade. If it's a throwaway class you'll never use again, and you are just taking to check a box, then do the minimum amount of work, and spend your time elsewhere.

When I hired people I didn't look at their GPA. I looked at their grades by class. Even ten years after leaving college, those skill levels take a bit of time to change. The C in English and A in public speaking can tell you a lot about the person your hiring even for STEM majors.

That makes sense. GPA by itself is meaningless, despite what teachers seem to think.

Originally Posted by 509

General education requirements are not bad in themselves. It is just that their useless for most STEM majors and they cost a LOT OF MONEY AND TIME.

Originally Posted by tnff

To me that's a big key. They consume time that is better spent elsewhere and add a lot of cost to your time in college.

Agree with both of you, and that is a major reason why engineering majors hate humanities classes, especially literature. I remember as early as middle school, it would frustrate me that while I could breeze through math and science homework with minimal time and effort, it was frustrating that there was no way to save time on literature. It would be a lot of time spent reading novels that I had 0 interest in, with no way to save time. Time that I would have preferred to spend doing just about anything else. And, while I can understand and accept that we sometimes have to do things we don't like, I never saw any benefit from reading the novels that English teachers would assign. People argue that the intent is to create a life-long love for reading. But forcing us to read, on somebody else's terms, a book that you have zero interest in, when you have other things that you want to do, has the opposite effect.

Also, engineers tend to be optimizers. We are often focsed on getting more done in less time, for example. So, it's frustrating having something like literature that there is no way to optimize, and you just need to waste the time on it.

Originally Posted by tnff

But that drives the question, if there are "Physics for Teachers" (etc) classes that require no heavy duty physics, then why aren't there "Lit for Physicists" which don't require pages of reading and huge papers describing what was read? Or much more appropriately, why not instead of English Comp, instead Technical Writing and Public Speaking classes? Those would actually be useful.

At my college, I was actually able to take technical writing and public speaking. Both of which were useful for me.