Eliminating general education requirements for college

[Such Irony]

Think about it. If general education requirements for college were eliminated students could graduate alot faster and save a bunch of money on tuition. Students wouldn't have to waste time taking courses of not interest or use to them and instead focus on courses in their major.

There is the argument that students need to get a good general education but shouldn't K-12 education serve that purpose?

 

[Orangey]

I am very much opposed to this because (1) it furthers the corporatization of universities, and (2) it is absolutely important for people to receive a well-rounded education. You have no idea how many kids are functionally sub-literate, have no concept of critical thinking, have never heard of Plato, and have no idea how our government works. Sure, these things could be generally helped at the k-12 level, but even if they were, I'd still advocate a general education requirement at university (only at a higher level, not remedial like it currently is.)

If the current model is annoying and ineffectual, it's because the classes need restructuring and the requirements should be revised to make them better. I can think of no reason why taking them away would be a good idea, except to satisfy the desires of a lazy, mostly ignorant group of students. But guess what? University education is not supposed to be the educational equivalent of shopping at the mall, so tough shit.

 

[Tiltyred]

My gut reaction is that they need boosting on both levels. Otherwise, what you're asking for is a trade school. There's nothing wrong with trade school, though. I just don't think that's what college is about.

 

[Giggly]

This sort of depends on if you see college/university simply as a place of higher learning or if you see it as a place you go to get a piece of paper that'll get you a job. I think most 4- year colleges see it as the former.

 

[xisnotx]

I'd be for it.
How many years of "general education" does one need? By the time a student gets to university he has been doing "general education" for 12 years. What exactly does the next 2 years of "general education" add to the last 12? Why not condense the 14 total years of general education into 12 years?

Imagine an economics major who studies economics for 4 years instead of 2. It would make his undergraduate degree more valuable, and seeing as we pay through the nose for education, we should be trying to maximize our return.

This sort of depends on if you see college/university simply as a place of higher learning or if you see it as a place you go to get a piece of paper that'll get you a job. I think most 4- year colleges see it as the former.

We're told to go to university because it increases our chances of success in life. Especially in this day and age, particularly outside the sciences, what can you learn at a university that you can't online? So far, the only thing that I've picked up by going to college that I wouldn't have otherwise is an affinity for parties.

I think, though, that education is slowly going in this direction anyway. Where I'm from, it's isn't atypical for high school juniors and seniors to be taking classes that give them college credit.

 

[prplchknz]

that's great if you know exactly what you want your degree in. most of us have no fucking clue and jump from major to major never finding the major for them. general education at least gives one a taste of different options.

 

[Metamorphosis]

This is an argument that generally comes from everyone in college and not from people that already graduated, haha.

Really, though, I think that you should have to take some basics in a number of different programs. Everyone only wants to take classes in whatever their specialty is, but really, just having a degree means something. If there weren't a great variety of classes in each program then employers would have nothing to gain from hiring college graduates that don't have the degree specifically in their field. Most importantly, college is about educating yourself and developing your way of thinking. It's not just about becoming a skilled technician. If that were the case, there would be no advantage to going to college over apprenticeships.

 

[Usehername]

I am very much opposed to this because (1) it furthers the corporatization of universities, and (2) it is absolutely important for people to receive a well-rounded education. You have no idea how many kids are functionally sub-literate, have no concept of critical thinking, have never heard of Plato, and have no idea how our government works. Sure, these things could be generally helped at the k-12 level, but even if they were, I'd still advocate a general education requirement at university (only at a higher level, not remedial like it currently is.)

If the current model is annoying and ineffectual, it's because the classes need restructuring and the requirements should be revised to make them better. I can think of no reason why taking them away would be a good idea, except to satisfy the desires of a lazy, mostly ignorant group of students. But guess what? University education is not supposed to be the educational equivalent of shopping at the mall, so tough shit.

x1000

Do you want your medical doctor only choosing to learn the kinds of knowledge about your body that they want to learn? Do you want your lawyer only learning the kinds of knowledge about the legal system that they want to learn?

Good thinking can't be done in a disciplinary bubble, vacuum-sealed away from the other kinds of approaches and thinking that people in different kinds of situations do. If it was, we'd all be thought-consumers instead of thought-leaders--which is the point of university. Stop showing that you read the material (like high school) and go beyond that to show that you can wield the material like a tool in novel situations. Isolating yourself from everything that's not your disciplinary interest is a way to kill intellectual leadership. If you value the concept of college you have to value that, perhaps, there's a reason why there's general education requirements.

And I agree with Orangey that it's often remedial. I teach writing argumentation at a state uni, and an absurd amount of students make emotional arguments that appear logical to them because they aren't hearing any other perspective--they've bubbled themselves off. This is a problem that needs restructuring; they shouldn't be getting to college and still be blind to the fact that they're making religious-esque arguments (reciting the things they have emotionally concluded), instead of logical arguments (bringing in justifiable evidence that legitimately substantiates their claims). You need different vantage points to be able to critically examine your own perspective. The less you collide with other perspectives, the more problematic your thinking becomes.

 

[Venom]

Easy solution for the "kids need a chance to explore etc.."

Make it a REQUIREMENT that kids work for 2 years before they can enroll in college. All they would need is a w2 or pay stubs. The job could be as remedial as or high up as you want, it'd be isolated from the admissions.
A) kids would be much more motivated after seeing how shitty life without a degree is!
B) kids could explore internships and other jobs BEFORE they throw away a bunch of money.

Regarding "college shouldn't be a shopping mall for a piece of paper". College in the "learn for learning sake" is antiquated. It dates from when rich dilettantes went to college because they were bored (1800s and some 1900s). True that a lot of great science came from these smart bored rich people... But now college is basically a sorting mechanism for the job market. Question:
A) does the economy a college supports (everyone employed by the nature of their being a college in their town) outway the negative effects the arguably unnecessarily expensive sorting mechanism? Do we really need 200k to sort people?
B) we could have skill/testing centers like in Australia and Europe do (for some white collar jobs even).
C) theres evidence that SAT scores could be just as effective in certain instances of sorting people.

the reality is that businesses are risk averse and lazy when it comes to sorting candidates. So even if most schools did adopt a 2 year streamline that was just as effective, the 4 years schools would stand out for nothing more but being "traditional" and "twice as long". The competitive pressure would force everyone back to 4...

I'd be for it.
How many years of "general education" does one need? By the time a student gets to university he has been doing "general education" for 12 years. What exactly does the next 2 years of "general education" add to the last 12? Why not condense the 14 total years of general education into 12 years?

Imagine an economics major who studies economics for 4 years instead of 2. It would make his undergraduate degree more valuable, and seeing as we pay through the nose for education, we should be trying to maximize our return.


We're told to go to university because it increases our chances of success in life. Especially in this day and age, particularly outside the sciences, what can you learn at a university that you can't online? So far, the only thing that I've picked up by going to college that I wouldn't have otherwise is an affinity for parties.

I think, though, that education is slowly going in this direction anyway. Where I'm from, it's isn't atypical for high school juniors and seniors to be taking classes that give them college credit.

that's great if you know exactly what you want your degree in. most of us have no fucking clue and jump from major to major never finding the major for them. general education at least gives one a taste of different options.

This is an argument that generally comes from everyone in college and not from people that already graduated, haha.

Really, though, I think that you should have to take some basics in a number of different programs. Everyone only wants to take classes in whatever their specialty is, but really, just having a degree means something. If there weren't a great variety of classes in each program then employers would have nothing to gain from hiring college graduates that don't have the degree specifically in their field. Most importantly, college is about educating yourself and developing your way of thinking. It's not just about becoming a skilled technician. If that were the case, there would be no advantage to going to college over apprenticeships.

x1000

Do you want your medical doctor only choosing to learn the kinds of knowledge about your body that they want to learn? Do you want your lawyer only learning the kinds of knowledge about the legal system that they want to learn?

Good thinking can't be done in a disciplinary bubble, vacuum-sealed away from the other kinds of approaches and thinking that people in different kinds of situations do. If it was, we'd all be thought-consumers instead of thought-leaders--which is the point of university. Stop showing that you read the material (like high school) and go beyond that to show that you can wield the material like a tool in novel situations. Isolating yourself from everything that's not your disciplinary interest is a way to kill intellectual leadership. If you value the concept of college you have to value that, perhaps, there's a reason why there's general education requirements.

And I agree with Orangey that it's often remedial. I teach writing argumentation at a state uni, and an absurd amount of students make emotional arguments that appear logical to them because they aren't hearing any other perspective--they've bubbled themselves off. This is a problem that needs restructuring; they shouldn't be getting to college and still be blind to the fact that they're making religious-esque arguments (reciting the things they have emotionally concluded), instead of logical arguments (bringing in justifiable evidence that legitimately substantiates their claims). You need different vantage points to be able to critically examine your own perspective. The less you collide with other perspectives, the more problematic your thinking becomes.

 

[Metamorphosis]

You can't just materialize mandatory jobs out of nowhere. I realized how shitty it was WITH a college degree when I graduated. Now, I have a job that doesn't even require a degree, technically, and I am very glad I went to college, because it is more than just a sorting mechanism.

 

[Venom]

I'm a few years post college, so I hear what you're saying about kids still in college and complaining about general Ed not being a good reason to change things. My argument is that we'd have a lot less of people having to "redo school", less people major in useless things and more motivation if people had to work or do internships before college.

The current economy makes it appear difficult to absorb all those 18 year olds who'd be looking for sales, food service and other non college jobs, but I think it'd be counteracted by having less college graduates.

Honest question: do you think the "critical thinking" you learned in general Ed was worth society putting a 100 to 200k price tag on what today is merely an admissions ticket? Think of all the other things people could spend that money on and still likely do their ENTRY LEVEL jobs just fine.

You can't just materialize mandatory jobs out of nowhere. I realized how shitty it was WITH a college degree when I graduated. Now, I have a job that doesn't even require a degree, technically, and I am very glad I went to college, because it is more than just a sorting mechanism.

 

[ThatGirl]

We should all go back to apprenticeships.

 

[Ginkgo]

We should all go back to apprenticeships.

That would be cool but very selective. If there was an institution for that - maybe a school with one student to a teacher... teaching would be much more nourishing.

 

[Southern Kross]

So from what I gather in the US you are forced to take certain subjects (a class each in science, maths, humanities etc?) in order to get a degree? Now that I think of it I have heard about this on TV. We don't have to do that here, along with several other aspects of the American education system - these differences can be confusing.

I suppose there are upsides to it but often it seems to me that America regards undergraduate degrees as an extension of high school and continues to treat students accordingly. I mean it's nice and all to encourage broader education but why continue to force students to take classes they don't want to (or perhaps aren't at all good at) when they're an adult and old enough to decide for themselves? It's fine if a particular degree requires people to take certain pertinent classes outside the subject, such as ethics for med or law students, but not a general list of requirements for all.

It is odd to me also that colleges should promote breadth of knowledge, when, correct me if I'm wrong, American jobs tend to be quite specialised and people rarely extend themselves beyond that speciality or their job description. In other words, being a jack of all trades isn't required.

 

[crayons]

I hated general ed. but ended up liking it since it exposed me to new things and helped strengthen the realization that one approach wasn't the lone and best approach to all questions about the world. Artistic and philosophical observations were also insightful (helped me learn some study techniques that helped me absorb and process my STEM classes info faster).

I have a degree and this job hunt is brutal, and I'm even overqualified for some jobs. :/

 

[Aquarelle]

I think Gen Eds are absolutely essential to the university experience. They can help you discover new passions, they help you better understand many aspects of the world around you (not just the ones you already care about), and they teach you to think critically. That said, university is not for everyone. There is nothing wrong with going to trade school, and people should not be afraid to go that route if it feels more applicable to them.

 

[Such Irony]

Honest question: do you think the "critical thinking" you learned in general Ed was worth society putting a 100 to 200k price tag on what today is merely an admissions ticket? Think of all the other things people could spend that money on and still likely do their ENTRY LEVEL jobs just fine.

That's what I was thinking when writing this thread. There are some general education requirements that would be useful to lots of different majors. English composition comes to mind. Whether your writing a proposal or a news article, many jobs require good written communication. The writing requirement though, could just be added to the required courses for a particular major, with different majors focusing on different types of writing. Journalism is going to demand a different style than say, science or technical fields.

World history or physical education on the other hand, just isn't directly relevant to most majors and jobs.

 

[Aquarelle]

The price tag of university is a different issue. I completely agree that higher education is way too expensive in this country, and because of that it is, sadly, not a realistic option for many people. However, um, 100-200K?? That's a private school price tag. Attending a private school is a personal choice. There are many great public universities that don't even come close to that price tag for a 4-year, undergraduate degree. I really don't have too much sympathy for those who choose to go to private school and then end up in debt.

 

[Such Irony]

I think Gen Eds are absolutely essential to the university experience. They can help you discover new passions, they help you better understand many aspects of the world around you (not just the ones you already care about), and they teach you to think critically. That said, university is not for everyone. There is nothing wrong with going to trade school, and people should not be afraid to go that route if it feels more applicable to them.

I agree about the value of Gen Eds and discovering new passions. I too like learning about many different things. I just don't think it should be forced. We already have to endure enough of that in K-12 education. I also think about the financial expense involved in taking courses of no interest or use to you. The thing is that for many fields, there is no trade school equivalent. If you want to major in the sciences, you will probably need a 4 year degree. Yet, some gen eds like world history aren't likely to be any more relevant to a scientist than say an auto mechanic- something that could be learned in a trade school.

 

[Aquarelle]

To me, university is not only about job preparation, but about developing as a person. And that, for me, is the reason Gen Eds DO need to be mandatory-- students who are "tracked" to go into the sciences or whatever would likely not take Gen Eds if it weren't required, and would miss out on a lot. Usually, if a student really doesn't want to do a bunch of Gen Eds, there are options available that require fewer-- BS degrees vs BA, etc. At my university, the Liberal Arts college requires 2 years of a foreign language, but the Science and Engineering college and the Business college do not. There's also the option to take Gen Eds at a community college, where they are muuuuch less expensive, and then transfer to the university when they are out of the way.

Plus, sad to say, not everyone ends up in the career they envisioned when choosing a major in college. It's good to have some back-up skills in the event that you can't find a job in your chosen field.